42 posts • joined 15 Jul 2011
Just $45,000 a year?
So the ICANN's Board of Directors are paid less then an average Aussie worker?
Re: Space lifts?
Yep most of the elevator will be lifting away from the planet.
The small lower bit will break and litter the earth in tiny pieces.
Re: Betting against Elon Musk?
No market for a 6 million dollar launch?
I've got way too much cash, thinks Jeff Bezos. Hmmm, pay more tax? Pay staff more? Nah, let's just go into space
Re: " I wish more people would put resources into space,"
Doesn't mars now have confirmed water?
Also arn't comets pretty much ice.
Re: Elector allocations
You mean the districts that are subject to gerrymander?
Of course if you get a giant storm and the power lines go down, your nuclear plants will not be able to get the power to the homes. Just like what actually happened in South Australia.
Now if you had local generation you would not need to worry so much about blackouts. But I don't think anyone would want a coal or nuclear plant in their backyard. (Probably not wind either)
If you want to avoid what happened in South Australia your only real option is storage at the local level.
From what I hear, they tested the site at a million forms/hour.
Apparently their are 6 million households in the same timezone on the east coast.
As said by a trucking company here. They would prefer one set of regulations rather then each council having a different set.
Ah I see. Your saying people who believe in not vaccinating also believe in global warming. You are not saying anything about the majority of people who believe in global warming.
Can you post a link to the study or are you just making it up?
Of course the oxygen in CO2 was originaly atmospheric oxygen. (One of the pieces of evidence for fossil carbon being turned into atmospheric CO2 is a drop in oxygen levels. Nothing to worry about though. The CO2 levels will be too high before oxygen runs out)
Re: with El Nino peaks removed
Lets try an experiment. We get the following data 1 ,1 ,1 , 1 , 1 ,1 ,1 ,1 ,1 , -100.
According to you their has been an large decrease in the data. If I know why that last one was an outlier I can say in general the data is stable. (Comparing like to like)
Re: No Surprise Er...
Would it be more accurate to say that less then 2% of papers studied had an opinion that humans were not responsible for climate change?
Re: Battery Times
You have solved the problem of generating the hydrogen from non fossil fuels?
Re: The elephant in the room
I can think of plenty of land that is not used for crops that would be useful for solar , including houses and carparks.
So 0.6% in one year is not a big deal.
And yet people were up in arms over a .1% reduction in GDP growth in Australia from a carbon tax.
Re: Ozone causes (a) warming (b) cooling (Delete as politically expedient)
or d) It cause both it different ways
Some people do not die from cancer. therefore it is not the cancer that kills people.
Re: net neutrality shouldn't be needed
The problem is the barrier of entry for cabling is quite high without regulation.
Re: Saving the world? My arse.
Seems to have only gone up by 10% due to the carbon tax.
Re: Makes no sense to me@JDX
>There is no study that actually has measured the emissions impact of massive amounts of renewable energy on electrical energy generation when co-operated with fossil backup.
Re: Makes no sense to me
So turbines a few km apart lose power from transmission of the power.
How much power is lost from centralized power stations transmitting over tens of kms of power lines?
Re: Makes no sense to me
>So a wind farm slightly bigger than the exclusions zone around Fukushima now, would (because almost nowhere would be less than 200m from a turbine) be totally uninhabitable permanently.
But would be very useful for a farm.
Re: Games are king
The deal was bad for Nintendo. At the point it was dropped it was the right move for Nintendo. They should of not gotten that far into the deal with that clause though
Re: How much for how much?
Yes their is a lot of very tiny asteroids. however their is also a lot more space to distribute them in.
Re: Questionable extrapolation
Their extrapolation is not BS. They just assumed no human activity at all to find the max area the peat could cover.
Re: Well Done Those People
Figures I have found show <3 years of >20 years lifetime to pay back the power for the prouction
Re: Very Dodgy
I'm Heavily Against:
*telling people they can use as much energy as they want without paying for the privilege.
Unless the Methane was in the ground and not in the air.
Re: Manmade CO2 significantly affecting the climate is rubbish
And all 100% of the natural CO2 emissions are then taken back up by nature. Plus some of what we put out. That leaves the only amount accumulating being what we put out.
Re: plenty of fuel
>The current known reserves of petroleum are sufficient for an estimated 50 years. The current reserves of coal are sufficient for an estimated 400 years, both at current usage rates.
>The current known reserves of Uranium are sufficient for an estimated 200 years. That is using existing technology. Using both plutonium, existing stocks of depleted Uranium, and thorium, Nuclear can be stretched out to 500 to 1000 years.
the key word their is current usage rates.
At just 1%/year increase
42 years of petroleum
163 years of coal
112 years of current Uranium
182-242 years with depleted Uranium, and thorium.
if you go up to 5%/year
27 years of petroleum
64 years of coal
50 years of current Uranium
68 - 82 years with depleted Uranium, and thorium.
Re: sales commission yes, control over use no
If consumer electronics increase the value of music then the musicians should have to give a share of the revenue to the consumer electronics companies.
I mean how often would you listen to music if you had to be at home with heavy/fragile speakers/playback device compared with a lightweight portable device.
Re: Riddle me this.
Is there some mechanism whereby the earth releases energy back into space?
Sun: very hot transmits heat to the earth that is hot (IR)
Earth: hot planet transmits heat to very cold space(IR)
Now the reason why temperatures do not rise a lot in day and cool a lot at night(>50) is that parts of the atmosphere reflects IR.
The 4 major gases are water vapor, carbon dioxide,methane and ozone. Clouds also reflect heat.
The basic argument about climate change
Sun cools by radiating heat to a colder body(Earth)
Earth cools by radiating heat to a colder body(Space)
Certain parts of the atmosphere slow down the cooling. (And stabilize the temperatures)
Humans have increased the ability to slow down the cooling(more CO2 in the air)
Therefore more energy is retained and temperatures go up.
Re: How To Save 2000 Liters of Heating Oil Per Year
I have seen figures of 200w /m^2
Re: Is the tide turning?????
>At that point, in sea level terms, things stop getting any worse.
(I think)Actually at that point the sea level stop getting any better.(ice is less dense so less ice = more dense water = lower sea levels). The problem is ice that is not floating in the sea but is on land. As the planet warms up more of that melts.
Re: The phrasing seems dubious and seem based on flawed assumptions
And how do you affect the level of the water vapor?
Too little and evaporation will occur to bring it back up.
Too much and it will precipitate out.
Warmer temperatures in the ocean leads to less CO2 being able to be held -> CO2 gets released.
CO2 then causes more warming and more CO2 is released.
(And if you say CO2->temperature can only be one way I will point you to Nitrogen dioxide. If you put some of NO2 into a container some will change into Dinitrogen tetroxide. And the reverse reaction also happens)
Or the 3rd option.
Use our technology to reduce the changes in the 1st place.
Re: Um what?
it makes sense if you can use the heat generated in the building. Then you get electricity and heat instead of heat.
I think they are using "self-sufficient" as in we already need electricity so lets not count that. (see the 70% self-sufficient not 100% )
>10% of £100 is £10 'poor' worker pays £10 tax
>10% of £1000 is £100 'rich bastard' pays £100 tax
correct socialist answer:
Poor worker spends £80 on a basic lifestyle. (food,house,transport)
£20 for luxuries which £10 gets taken out as tax. poor worker gets 50% tax on luxury money.
'rich bastard' spends the same £80 on a basic lifestyle.
£920 left for luxuries of which £100 is tax. =10.87% tax on luxury money.
correct capitalist answer:
Why should the 'rich bastard' have to pay tax he is employing the £100 workers. He has to pay the £100 tax and the £100 salary. So out of his £1100 he is paying £200 out.
£10 of £100 is 10%
£200 of £1100 is 18.19%
Why should the rich have to pay more to other people then the poor person.
Try 5-6 times as much energy from space solar(generally you only get 5 peak hours of sun). But costs for space solar are a lot more then 5-6 times then terrestrial solar.
16k to 18k?
the no tax is 6k to 18k
The 16k you are referring to is due to the low income tax offset which has been reduced but still is there. which brings the actual tax-free to ~20k
and the 3% increase in some brackets is offset by a reduction in the rate the low income offset is reduced for those brackets.