Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:$119 trillion is not a lot of money (Score 1) 360

by linoleo (#35277508) Attached to: Stanford, UCD Researchers Say 100% Renewable Energy Possible By 2050

The GDP of the United States is around 14.5 trillion dollars. Taking an average historical growth rate of 3.2% per year, the cumulative GDP of the US from 2011 to 2050 is 1144 trillion dollars.

Therefore, your supposedly preposterous cost represents around 10% of GDP over the period.

Not to mention that the cost given is for the entire world. Given that the US represents about 20% of the world's energy use, the real figure is more like 2% of US GDP.

Comment: spend the money at home! (Score 1) 360

by linoleo (#35277468) Attached to: Stanford, UCD Researchers Say 100% Renewable Energy Possible By 2050

> At $100 per bbl that's $8.5 billion per day or, by 2050 $120 trillion, almost exactly the same cost as you've given above.

The real differentiator is that you'd be spending most of that money at home building your new energy infrastructure, instead of forking it over to corrupt middle-eastern despots to build air-conditioned palaces in the sand, as you do now. Hell of a lot better stimulus program too than the bank bailout, Iraq war, and all the other lobby-induced nonsense the US government likes to lose a trillion on every year or so.

Comment: not much more than a sauna (Score 1) 83

by linoleo (#30296046) Attached to: Royal Society Releases Historic Science Papers

I did not know that people could survive such heat

Bah. A decent sauna is around 200 degrees Fahrenheit, and is good for you. I've spend plenty of quarter-hours at this temperature. US sauna are all dialed pitifully low for insurance reasons.

260F is just enough hotter than 200F that it wouldn't be pleasant anymore, but certainly not lethal in the short term. Drink enough fluids to replace the sweat and you'll be fine.

Comment: Re:It's about the "I" in "ISS" (Score 1) 554

by linoleo (#28713799) Attached to: NASA Plans To De-Orbit ISS In 2016

Science may have had little use for it, but what was accomplished in terms of international cooperation is really quite impressive.

Maybe so. The point, however, is that this sort of thing could have been accomplished just as well by spending the same amount of money on any comparably complex international project - preferably one that, unlike the ISS, had some actual value, be it scientific, ecologic, humanitarian, whatever.

Amazing things could have been done with this kind of money and international cooperation. Instead we got a white elephant in orbit, proving nothing so much as our ability to throw good money (ISS) after bad (Shuttle) into the pockets of the aerospace-military-industrial complex.

Somebody please rewind the last 30 years of the US manned space program. It's been far worse in terms of fizzle-per-gigabuck than anyone's worst nightmares could have envisioned in 1979. It makes me weep.

I am not now, nor have I ever been, a member of the demigodic party. -- Dennis Ritchie

Working...