Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Doctadeth wrote:So, lets ignore the safety cut-offs that can be implemented nowdays, lets ignore the Thorium-321 reaction that is implemented with it's own power and is not self-sustaining.

This would be more useful if the US plants weren't mostly old as hell, or if we actually had the political will to demand that the plants be shut down temporarily so that modern safety features can be implemented.

sebster wrote:

biccat wrote:You still see the need to attack people of the opposite political persuasion even when they agree with you.

Is everything about left and right to you? That's just weird.

Really, really?

They just don't care because it's Free Republican and inventing disingenuous bs is basically their entire reason for being.

Look, I understand that you have to backtrack when someone points out that your posts don't make any sense, but at least try to be consistent from one page of the thread to the next. You're just making yourself look foolish.

biccat wrote:

sebster wrote:

biccat wrote:You still see the need to attack people of the opposite political persuasion even when they agree with you.

Is everything about left and right to you? That's just weird.

Really, really?

They just don't care because it's Free Republican and inventing disingenuous bs is basically their entire reason for being.

Look, I understand that you have to backtrack when someone points out that your posts don't make any sense, but at least try to be consistent from one page of the thread to the next. You're just making yourself look foolish.

Read the name of the website that link points too, now read sebsters post. Explain how attacking the cite is attacking republicans

"Free Republic is the premier online gathering place for independent, grass-roots conservatism on the web."

Obviously our distinguished guest knows something about the site, because he asserted that their raison d'etre is "inventing disingenuous bs."

Do you really want to argue that Free Republic is not a conservative forum?

biccat wrote:"Free Republic is the premier online gathering place for independent, grass-roots conservatism on the web."

Obviously our distinguished guest knows something about the site, because he asserted that their raison d'etre is "inventing disingenuous bs."

Do you really want to argue that Free Republic is not a conservative forum?

That was not the point. He is not attacking it because they are conservative he is attacking because they invent disingenuous bs.
If there is a site that claims 9/11 was an inside job then you can call them insane, not because they are liberal, but because they're insane.

youbedead wrote:If there is a site that claims 9/11 was an inside job then you can call them insane, not because they are liberal, but because they're insane.

I don't understand the distinction you're making. I'm not sure that there is one.

Besides, if DemocraticUnderground came out with a similarly snarky post that I agreed with, I wouldn't attack them, despite the fact that the people there really are both insane and liberal.

If a source of information is bad, it is right and appropriate to point that out.

I know that a "9/11 truther" site is going to be full of garbage and idiocy, regardless of whether the people on it are theoretically on the same side of the political spectrum as me.

If Free Republic is a terrible source, providing distorted information, which is Sebster's contention, than of course it's appropriate to point that out. In addition to commenting on the quality of the source, he explained his specific problem with the article. That they're making an invalid comparison.

-------------

All that said...

I am largely an environmentalist in many ways, but I still support nuclear power. It's cleaner, safer and more practical than the alternatives at this point.

They obviously need to get on with cold fusion and/or making solar panels not so pathetically inefficient.

Agree nuclear isn't great, coal is worse, oil is just as bad (lolgulfofmexico)... so obviously nuclear would be fine, but maybe they shouldn't put them so close to population centers. Obviously a problem in Japan, since they have no room. (also, maybe shouldn't put them on active fault lines with names like THE RING OF FIRE)

Maybe if we had decently efficient solar, every home and building could have a small solar array, then perhaps that wouldn't tax the power grid as much, therefore we'd need less power plants? Dreaming here, like the fed would ever sponsor something like that; big oil/big coal would be up in arms and send in their lobbyists armed with their pockets lined with cash.

There was a breakthrough in solar earlier this year, increasing efficiency quite a bit, but probably still not where we need it to be.

Some people do use rooftop solar panels and reduce/eliminate their electric bills that way. I've even heard of folks who manage to pull in enough power that they have a surplus and sell it back to the power company.

Anyone got some numbers on the freeway-lining solar panels in Germany? How well do those suckers work?

Lining freeways would seem to be an excellent placement here in the US, too. You already have to budget the highway department to maintain that verge and keep it clear. You have all this cleared land all over the US.

Mannahnin wrote:Some people do use rooftop solar panels and reduce/eliminate their electric bills that way. I've even heard of folks who manage to pull in enough power that they have a surplus and sell it back to the power company.

Anyone got some numbers on the freeway-lining solar panels in Germany? How well do those suckers work?

Lining freeways would seem to be an excellent placement here in the US, too. You already have to budget the highway department to maintain that verge and keep it clear. You have all this cleared land all over the US.

Wow, that would be a great idea... already have in Germany huh? What a surprise, no one in the US would ever talk about that.

I'd love to get a solar panel on my house, pretty damn expensive at the moment still though. They need to work on the cost and the efficiency.

biccat wrote:Really, really?

Really.

Look, I understand that you have to backtrack when someone points out that your posts don't make any sense, but at least try to be consistent from one page of the thread to the next. You're just making yourself look foolish.

No, I continue to think it's really weird that you'd be so committed to your team that you'd consider Free Republic had some purpose other than making up disingenuous bs to support the conservative cause.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

biccat wrote:Do you really want to argue that Free Republic is not a conservative forum?

No, I want to argue that Free Republic makes bs arguments, and that it's really weird that someone can be so committed to a team that they can't see that.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Mannahnin wrote:Some people do use rooftop solar panels and reduce/eliminate their electric bills that way. I've even heard of folks who manage to pull in enough power that they have a surplus and sell it back to the power company.

Anyone got some numbers on the freeway-lining solar panels in Germany? How well do those suckers work?

Lining freeways would seem to be an excellent placement here in the US, too. You already have to budget the highway department to maintain that verge and keep it clear. You have all this cleared land all over the US.

The thing with solar is that it costs a lot to get a kilowatt of energy generated. There's no getting past that. But solar has the huge advantage in being able to be localised. Coal power stations produce a kilowatt of electricity really cheaply, but much of that is lost on the way to the house. Once you factor in the idea that solar power loses nothing in transit because it's produced on location, suddenly solar power gets pretty close to be cost effective, as well as much greener than traditional means.

So, basically, I don't see much future in big solar panel batteries stuck out in the desert or even along the freeway (unless they're used to power the streetlights)

Mind you, I am really, really not an expert.