Better make that 32 to be safe. Wait, because of decay and possible failure, let's make it an even 1000.
Better make that 32 to be safe. Wait, because of decay and possible failure, let's make it an even 1000.
It's a jobs program dumbass! We keep hundreds of scientists employed studying the decay and effectiveness of the warheads. A few of those scientists keep our Courts and Laywers in business along with all of the investigators and juries when they steal secrets for China. Not to mention all of the investigative reporters that would be out of work if they didn't have something to write about. We put thousands of people to work in the military making sure that they're safe and handled properly. Not to mention all of the DOE bureaucrats that oversee the the kit and kaboodle.
No, we need more nukes now to grow American Jobs!
Despite the fact that he's a loud-mouthed git, Clarkson has been saying this for years although Andy Wilman (producer) is probably putting the words into his mouth.
Wait, Clarkson doesn't need anybody to put words into his mouth. From the production of the materials for the batteries to the charging problems of range and overall production of the electricity to charge them up, the technology just isn't there. We'd all be better just making moonshine in our backyards and feeding 100% alcohol into our cars (with mods of course)
You didn't pay enough.
LOL, man Foxconn sounds like the US Auto Makers in the 1970s. It's because as others have pointed out. Bolted Down robotic workers don't complain and don't jump out of the nearest window. They depreciate, require routine maintenance but day after day they do what they're instructed within extremely precise tolerances. That means a better quality product for their customers without all of those "soft problems" that complicates business.
With China pushing people out of rural areas and into ever larger cities, it will be very interesting over the next few years to see how all of those people will earn a living. While the jobs at Foxconn are drudgery by any modern standard, they do allow people to earn money and contribute to the economy. Turning them ultimately into those nice wage slaves that all companies love that buy products and need services. Workers in China are already pushing for higher wages and better working conditions, something that the beneficent Foxconn would be very reluctant to go along with given their recent labor relations gaffs and breakup with Apple. Unfortunately the stories about labor shortages in China seem a bit disingenuous and reminds me of how there's a presumed "tech shortage" in this country. It seems even in China getting labor for the absolute cheapest price may be pushing this 12 year urbanization plan. These are all problems for China which are magnitudes of order more complex when you're talking about the scale in terms of a population of over one billion. I don't think China can make enough of anything, electronics, knock-off watches, handbags et al to keep up with the population demanding a better quality of life, which means better wages, better working conditions and all those consumer goodies the rest of us take so much for granted.
As a father with three kids in college and another one one just about there already, I wonder where they're going to make their niche in this world economy where your education and your experience can all be cooped out to some fraud ridden outsourcing firm who brings in a person or outsources your position elsewhere. I've told all of my kids not to follow me into Software and Engineering fields because people employed in those fields are now considered a commodity and subject to too much educational push from an ever increasing wave of immigrants from diploma mills overseas. What people don't really realize is that we've shifted out way of thinking from "value and quality" to "good enough at a low price" because the products and services we use have varying degrees based on those expectations. Entire markets the world over have been shifting in that direction and it's eroding the economic and social landscape of countries everywhere with companies seeking the lowest cost labor they can find that has just enough technical competency to get what they need done.
I installed it today and there were a few annoyances/pleasant surprises even after reading the warnings:
1) It wipes out and replaces your driver profiles back to OEM after upgrading. You'll need to re-install any OEM video drivers etc. In my case my Dual SLI configuration didn't work very well until after I had re-installed/restored my configuration prior to the upgrade.
2) The upgrade is an endless series of "almost ready" and "getting ready" and "... we're doing this... " and
3) All of the new features promised are there, the tile layout is a bit more friendly but I'm sure I'll hit on a few of the other things.
4) A/V software gets kicked to the curb. Working with my A/V vendor now on the nice new dialog that pops up complaining about incompatible software, that you can't get around even with the Compatibility Assistant.
5) The Fish is back. I'm not sure if I like the "Mr. Limpett" fish all that much. I'm eradicating it after this post.
6) Classic Shell still works, so I have my start button context menu.
I believe it's in reference to this. A running gag in "Up!"
There is congressional oversight by the Intelligence Committees. However they're so caught up with shit all over their faces right now because they're the ones who tell their peers that "This is okay, approve it" when it comes to the acts and the budget.
The way to kill all of this horseshit is to ultimately hold congress accountable and change the laws, de-fund it and get back to putting this country on the right track as opposed to worrying about middle-eastern shit for brains that have nothing better to do than kill and maim their own people. That of course would mean that we need voters who are willing to actually vote for new candidates and stop voting for the same old shit. With about half of the country opposed to the other half right now, I'll believe that when I grow udders and get milked (to paraphrase a line from "The Money Pit.").
"In a democracy people get the leaders they deserve." - Joseph de Maistre
Oh shit, sorry I thought you said lines... lines.... lines!!!!
"I could tell you what is wrong, but then I'd have to kill you."
I've already patented annexing of zeros, my lawyers will be in touch with you shortly. Also, be advised I have a patent pending on shifting decimal places.
All Twinkie production has been outsourced to Foxconn where trade unions are opaque and you live in collective apartment complexes 8 to a room, complete with safety nets for works who try to commit suicide.
Yeah, those Unions are really bad for American workers.
Because true geeks can't afford Twinkies.
Isn't Karma a renewable resource?
Oh.. If you replace Nuclear power with (X) whatever X is that's quite a chunk of power to replace. In 2011, according to this Nuclear power in this country produced over 821 billion kWh of power. If you replace that with X, we need to know what that replacement cost should be, right?
How many wind Turbines that kill about 600,000 birds / year including Eagles/Hawks/Owls.
We're not building any more large Hydro projects, and we have drought in most of the country presumably because of global warming.
Large Scale Solar Projects are hit / miss (30 to 40% success range) but they're getting better. So how many square miles of solar panels would we need and where would we put them? I have Solar at my house an 8kW system but it has degradation problems with US built panels. I'm already fighting to get those replaced but if we buy more Photo-Voltaic based Solar, that means we'll pad the pockets of the Chinese, increasing an already voluminous trade deficit.
Coal is an option but we'll never get to 0% CO2 with Coal, are we willing to build more Coal mainline plants to make up for the capacity?
Natural Gas seems to be attractive and the Natural Gas folks think substantially along the lines that most of the new energy in this country over the upcoming decades will by CNG capacity, not Nuclear, not Coal. Natural Gas produces less CO2, but it's not-renewable and it pollutes both on the supply side (fracking etc)
and in the processing. So, there's trade-offs there and costs.
On the Photo-Voltaic side of things, right now current panels are anywhere from 100 to 200 watts per square meter. My panels for example were rated to average 180.. I get a lot of sun where I am but let's just work this out and figure out with COTS technology what it would take.
Figure 150 watts / square meter.
Let's assume it's sunny every day where you put these and you get 6 hours at that production rate (early morning/late afternoon, lets power, sometimes clouds) shorter days/longer days etc. Anyway that's 900 W and with extra time, let's say another 40% for morning/evening etc. 1260 W/day/meter or approximately 1.3 kWh/square meter. That 821 BkWh figure is 24/7/365 but let's assume 60% of that was peak daytime capacity for 1/3 (8 hr/day) and the remaining 40% was for non-peak. I'm just pulling some numbers out here, so you plug in your own. 60% of that 821 BkWh figure comes out to 492.6 BKwh that you'd need during daylight hours. At 1.3 KWh/sq meter/day that's 492,600 square km. or 190,194 square miles. of COTS Photo-Voltaic or an area larger than California. But wait, an area that large is going to have clouds, storms overhead etc. So let's say that it's only on average 70% efficient, that means you'll need another 30% in additional area plus that would include Winter when the days are shorter. Anyway, this could all be put into a spreadsheet but who in California is willing to live in Shade the rest of their lives to supply us with 60% or so of the replacement of our Nuclear Main Line generating capacity? That other 40% of that that generating capacity that can't be by Solar would need to be replaced by Natural Gas, Coal or Wind. Let's say NG is the way you want to go. You'd need 328.4 BkWh in capacity and a typical NG Power Station about 500kWh (Largest in US has about 545 megawatts/day capacity) so 545 MW/day = 545,000 kWh/day
(sorry for the crude scientific notation)
328.4 x 10^9 / 545 X 10^6 = 602 plant operating days. From this. Using Natural Gas, for a kWh takes the burning of
With just those numbers, and mind you I'm flying here with my calculator. Yes, there are issues, mostly political around dealing with the waste issue however there are also proposals on dealing with it in other ways other than storage and we also need to address all of those aspects. Putting that much CO2 into the atmosphere isn't responsible either and I'm just showing 40% of the that capacity. Think if it were 100%?
Also San Onofre 2/3 produced about 2000 MWe combined, or 48,000 MWh/day. Since they've been shutdown awhile, we've already been hit with the environmental impact of burning more Gas to make up for it. SO per year of the loss of that power costs 48,000,000 kWh/day * 365.25 = 17.5 BkWh/year in power generation that has to come from somewhere. If it's been made up by Natural Gas, that's about 17.1 billion pounds of CO2 or approximately 8.5 million tons. Take the second line impact above using the lowest impact ($893/ton as of 2010) number above and excluding direct economic impact (higher electrical rates, lost jobs etc.) of the shutdown is $7.6 Billion in economic damage/yr. Okay, so Mother Jones uses some high estimates if you take the $40/ton in increased healthcare costs it's $340 Million / year.
My calculator and I have been arguing all night but I have gone over these numbers a couple of times. If I've made a mistake, I apologize in advance but just running a few numbers, for me at least in CO2 impact equating to economic impact means that we don't have a solution that can replace current Nuclear technology unless we're willing to do a whole lot more damage to the environment.
a couple of decades? Let's see with San Onofre offline California residents are paying more in electrical rates now and the power is being generated by more mainline gas generation to make up the shortfall. This article indicates to that it may be difficult for California to meet it's CO2 goals because of the need to burn 360 million cubic feet of gas per day to make up for the loss of the reactors at San Onofre.
Two percent of zero is almost nothing.