selkirk

well, we do have the white hat in this western. If the good guys do it it must be ok. It never ceases to amaze me that people apply standards so arbitrarily, and seem incapable of accepting that god forbid, another religous or foreign policy doctrine might have value? or that, it might even be as valid as ours? Lots of Hubris in this country, and gluttony, and sloth, and avarice and ..... (not to say that there certainly isn't some Hubris in the islamic militants, but i'd expect we'd at least hold ourselves to the same standard we hold others if not a stiffer one. After all, aren't the evangelicals the "chosen people" while the rest of us are irredemable sinners?)

Oh, we only seem to ignore the ones that aren't convienent for us. Isn't that what's really important anyway? After all, this is the wild wild west, where were all for lynch mob justice. Since were the "good guy" the ends seem to be justifying the means. not even sure what to say. The current administration is just nauseating.

Leave it to you to say something dirty

yes but if you look at the notes below (#4) it says nuclear will reduce C02 emmissions by .37kg/KWh vs .25kg/KWh for combined cycle (when compared to coal emissions of .37Kg/KWh, so nuclear outputs 0 kg, and CC outputs .12kg/KWh). How then does the combined cycle output less C02 than zero? I'll have to look at the Economist, but not today, actually have to work Still haven't answered the analysis of reserves and how long they'll provide power for.

I've got the WA set of CD's and haven't bought a full size topo since. Just print out whatever I'd like. Goes through ink kind of fast, and if your doing navigation by compass sighting off distant peaks it may not be ideal, or you'll need to print out multiple resolutions. So.... good for hiking, good for relatively direct approachs, not so good for really long hikes or serious overland navigation. Of course I didn't buy mine which helps

Nice find. Though something is obviously goofy. Looking at their analysis burning natural gas produces less than no CO2? Isn't possible, unless the number of plants are different. So how can it produce less CO2 than Nuclear? Something is fishy here. Also, how to proven or estimated reserves compare? (better than 150yrs worth on current technology and usage rates? If were going to throw in breeder reactors, and the potential for seawater or other extraction technique this goes up)? getting better but no gold start for you yet

or you could just buy one of these Rope Pen And it's a whole $1.00 more than a sharpie

I think he's saying that at the current rate, it won't just be an imminent threat to Japan, but maybe Hawaii, Seattle, LA...

Your point is? That like saying you've got a 30,000 volt battery, but nothing to ground it to... it's so very helpful! And yes, damn's certainly rock from a power standpoint, but they're very limited in location, and the net amount of maximum power output available (though very good points on the storage issue utilizing reservoirs and modifying the flow through. And utilizing on demand power (coal/gas/oil to fill in as needed). So, is this applicable to say, New York? Or France, Germany, China? It's great in spots, where you have the vertical drop and the waterflow available, but it isn't broadly enough available. In addition, it doesn't really have the capacity to grow. Somehow I doubt were going to get much more Hydro out of the Columbia There may be a few more rivers we could tap, but it's pretty finite. Conservation is also great, as is utilizing low tech high output energy generation when possible (windmills are wonderful for that) However that's not going to account for the relatively quickly growing need, or the necessity of having it available at steady rates and geographically everywhere. As we grow and consume more power were going to need more power plants. We may need fewer if start utilizing greener technology, but were still going to need new ones. And what we can do in the NW isn't going to work everywhere, so while we all agree hydro rocks, does anyone say were going to be able to get more of it? In the end were going to need to keep increasing the number of power plants online, as well as upgrading/replacing existing ones and I would still much rather see nuclear than fossil fuel. Nuclear power matched with avialable breeder reactor technology gives us one hell of a lot of high energy density fuel available, without having the greenhouse gas, acid rain, issues. At first blush, at current rates we have something like 170 yr worth of easily recoverable fuel, with Breeders we can significantly extend that as they actually create more fuel then they consume, match this with potential extraction from sea water, and we can stretch it even further. We have the technology, we have the capacity, we have the need for electricity/energy and it continues to grow. Should this be the only technology developed? Hell no, we should certainly tap every feasible green source available to stretch our reserves of coal, oil, gas and uranium as possible. But I really doubt it's going to be enough, especially not in the short term. The biggest drawback to nuclear is political. All the wonderful radiation movies from the 50's, a couple of high profile accidents (though only one was really bad), and issues cleaning up from weapons production and the infancy of energy production have people spooked and fearing mutant babies, and growing third eyes. Somehow I doubt that if my grandfather the electrician at Hanford didn't grow any extra arms, I doubt I will either . I'd love to hear exactly what spooks people so badly about it.

I'm not so concerned about the rate of malpractice claims, nor the the health of the insurance industry. When doctors begin shying away from practicing in certain fields, or in certain locations because it isn't affordable there's a huge issue and the end result is untreated patients.

model and specs?

I'm guessing primarily hyrdo? I can't imagine there is the right terrain for monstrous wind mill farms, and I doubt theres enough long term sun for solar? So what else is green? Now tell me how this applies to say New York, or Kansas? Spot solutions are a different story. The NW US is primarily hydro but it's not broadly applicable. So... 90% green in an area with a population of what? where there's relatively abundant hydro? Net effect is small. It's not providing power for BC or Washington that has issues. It's the plains, the east coast, and the south, and california that are the problems. You know the places where lots of people live.... keep trying.....

In which case with the current construction rates and reclamation of old property how long will it take before this is even remotely feasible without back conversion say (20% of all homes have this technology integrated)? Thats kind of what I thought

I'm working on a PhD in Aeronautics and Astronautics focusing on fluid mechanics/dynamics experimentation and computational modeling... it's more than enough. And with my background in Mechanical Engr. matched with discussions with my brother-in-law the Architect I've got a reasonably good grasp of at least some of the issues Though i've always been a fan of Nuclear Power (two grandfathers were in it, and my dad was for a while as well). It's not the best quasi-permanent power source, but until we can develop something that will be on demand, and clean, it's better than the current feasible options. (and my friends studying fusion/plasma physics sing the same song that fusion people have been singing for a long time, fusion is 20yrs out with sufficient funding) silly boy

Another storage mechanism is to use the excess to pump water uphill. Then when you need the energy back you release the water back down through a turbine or whatever. I think this method is used in places in concert with windmills to smooth out the cyclicity of wind. good idea, but I would like to see the scale analysis and efficiency issues. While feasible for a house, how much water/how high an elevation, or how many storage plants for a city seattles size? My instinct... it becomes prohibitive. As for efficiency, just off instinct (and mine should be ok, as i'm an ME studying fluid mechanics) it would be a miracle if you could get 75 or 80% probably closer to 50% (losses in transit, turbine inefficiency, pump inefficiency), though this is a good low tech solution (relatively small environmental impact, low energy cost to develop and maintain. Those are actually some of the biggest benefits of windmills) The problem is not everything scales well. For a single house in the country, if your usage is low you can absorb a lot of inefficiency in storage capacity combined with nearly continuous generation. Trust me, I would very much love to see these things come to pass! But I don't think there's a silver bullet, and in the meantime we need something, cause what were doing is lacking.

granted, power plants run pretty much 24/7, and as needed they sell the power elsewhere, (though elsewhere isn't global). Even if every house produces enough net electricity for it's own needs, sells some to the grid during off peak, and purchases some back from the grid during peak, your not going to be able to get rid of the power plants or the capacity to produce, even if everyone does it. You still need to account for peak ussage and the variation for when power is produced vs when it's consumed. The "grid" isn't mystical, it's just a bunch of power lines connecting those who make it to those who use it. And everyone likes to use it at the same time (when it's too cold, when it's too hot, and when were at home cooking or watching the TV) so were back to 1. on demand. 2. storage. Assuming all of north america did this, and we ignore transmission losses, it still wouldn't be effective. It would be prone to disruption by major storms and weather systems, night, and by seasonal shifts, all of which happen to be times that having it available is pretty important. though it would probably work great ok in the summer when all you need to power is the AC and have lots of sun

But there is still a storage need. Electricity isn't used at a steady rate. Assuming something like Solar it's produced most heavily mid-day, where household use is highest in the evening when solar is dropping off, and this would go for everyone. So, in this case where does the electricity everyone needs in the evening come from? when everyone is drawing more than their producing? Or how about during the winter? Windmills might be uneffective but the usefullness of solar drops off significantly when you've only got a few hours of low angle light. Are you saying that the traditional power production technologies should just reduce power production during the day, and increase it from 4:00 to 8:00 everyday? Talk about a crappy return on your initial investment, monstrous costs for the power plant to generate power for 4 hours each day, or maybe the government should pick up the tab? This would only be feasible if you had the entire world on a grid to average out the effects of day, night, weather, season etc. but then you'd butt up against horrendous transmission losses (why do you think power plants are located everywhere, instead of just in texas). It all comes down to either having power on demand and excess capacity (pretty much what we do now) or being able to store it as it's produced and tap it when needed (but you'll still require backup generation schemes, for those bad winters when there isn't any sun, but your heating costs are high). keep trying

Lets all hope your right. But i'm still skeptical. The house may power itself but that doesn't mean it's truly self sufficient. We still need enough excess to drive manufacturing, cities and metropitan dwellings where this isn't feasible, mass transit, not to mention the power cost of building the house and all it's neat gadgets, power your electric car, etc...... I'm sure someone has done an analysis of where our electricity is consumed, but i'm too lazy to look it up. My instinct says that households aren't the majority of it though, and may even be a small minority. Where are these houses and what tech. are they using? I've looked at Off the grid houses a bit, and on a small scale your right, they can be effective, typically though there is still the requirement of some alternative source (often a propane generator) as many of the power generation systems can't run all the time, and are good only when matched with a storage mechanism, so you can store energy as it's produced, since usage is cyclical, not at a constant rate, while production is also cyclical, but not on the same cycle. One bugaboo here though is the storage mechanism of choice... usually something akin to loads of deep cycle batteries (tractor batteries). That's just what I want in everyones yard! Or do you have some other novel technique? keep trying though

aaah, I love the sound of cowbells in the morning, sounds like, climbing.

Hanford was a product of very early nuclear technology and practices, not representative of modern nuclear plants. That's like comparing a charcoal grill to a coal fired power plant in how efficient and clean the final output is Not to mention that Hanfords primary purpose was never power generation but refinement of Uranium/Plutonium for use in weapons . Very nice red herring though. Would you like to talk about Three Mile Island, or Chernobyl? How about that fact that the plant down at the INEEL that vitrifies nuclear waste is powered by a coal power plant... but the coal plant has to be outside the boundaries of the vitrification plant, as it outputs to much radiation to meet NRC specs.

Yeah, but that #10 is great for beating people with! Much less expensive and unwieldy than a cam.

Where do they serve the best Calimari?

My concern has always been that alternative sources have either 1. limited capacity on the upper end (only so much available hydro and without new mountains were not going to get anymore) 2. limited energy density (exactly how many acres of windmills does it take to provide power for NY or Atlanta?) 3. limited locational availability (i'd love to see a solar powered Seattle ) 4. Storage issues, unless someone has a great way to store huge amounts of electricity for later use (would be needed with Wind, Solar, tidal etc) Until someone can seriously show that these issues can be overcome and account for transmission losses, lifetime costs etc. i'm going to be awfully skeptical (Last I heard few solar cells actually produce more power in their practical lifetime than it takes to produce them) Nuclear may have issues (high input cost, and very long term waste storage) but at least we have the waist contained (as opposed to fossil fuels) and it overcomes all of the issues of alternative sources.

I don't mind someone being reasonable, asking to pass, and respectfully climbing through, not putting my ass in danger. Some asshole trys to blow through, clipping my pro, and being a jackass? He's going to find himself tied off to a big fat hex with a prusik Afterall this isn't France thank god

Yes, a lot of it is. And I also challenge that many people *choose* not to "afford" health insurance by allocating their disposable income on other products of their choice - first and foremost on personal entertainment and material goods. One major misdirection of the who health insurance issue is differentiating between "catastrophic" coverage and general coverage. It's lack of the former that could ruin a family - the latter can and should be paid by choice *privately*. For those who truly can not afford it, doctors should do pro bono work and charities can pick up the slack - charities that, unlike government, are actually accountable, and fraud can be more easily checked out. Mmm... thread drift... good points, our consumer culture certainly does seem to have our spending priorities out of wack, 2 cars per household, big TV, all mandatory! Insurance, someone else will pick up the tab anyway! Charities picking up some slack? Good idea, but with current med-malpractice laws, who in the hell could afford to? Same with pro-bono stuff. The Med-Mal insurance really needs to get fixed, certainly not the only issue here, but definitely a big one. For me the two most telling points were 1. My aunts insurance (as in Internist in Cleveland, went up $30k in one year , solution, she moved to Hawaii, and 2. There are no OBGYN in West Virginia Malpractice insurance costs too much, end result, to get pre-natal care women have to go out of state, or just not get it, which ends up causing more high-risk stuff, leading to more complications, more law suits etc ) Spooky, Spooky if you ask me.