"Clean Coal" Claims that Solar can't handle Baseload power demands!

[MadisonMPG]

I wouldn't mind the two kids thing. (I am 17 though, so I don't really know)

There are soo many things wrong with society today lol

One being guys with... tiny penises buying HUMMERS and F350's to help compensate.

[Frank Lee]

Originally Posted by bestclimb

I don't want government that far up my bedroom.

The real trick is that as resources become more scarce, and pollution becomes more of a problem (so limiting emissions becomes more expensive) each KW will cost more. All resources will be doing this not just electricity. We will learn to limit consumption without the help of an edict from on high. Economics will (already is) get folks to limit their consumption and do it willingly.

Govt is already up yer bedroom- they (meaning, everybody else) pay people to have kids, remember? So are ya with me on the removal of dependent tax deductions and school funding based on how many kids you put in the school?

Agreed, economics is pretty much the ONLY way there is to effect behavioral change. So the subsidies for cheap energy should be stopped if we hope to curb the reckless rise in energy consumption.

[Christ]

I firmly believe in only replacing myself on this earth. The most kids I will have is 3. If I hit three, as soon as the third is conceived, I go get a vasectomy. Even if I don't stay with my wife, which I fully intend to do, I will not have another child with another woman, period.

The only way it will even go as far as 3 is if the next one is a boy again. If it's a girl (what we're hoping for) it's all over with that one.

Obviously, if there are multiples, which isn't likely, we will take it in stride. Some things you can't control, but reproducing like rabbits isn't intelligent to say the least. It's a burden on more than just the parents, often. (Octo-mom.)

[Frank Lee]

You know, 2 is where it outta stop.

[Christ]

Originally Posted by Frank Lee

You know, 2 is where it outta stop.

What if the next pregnancy is a multiple? Would you then abort one or more so that "2 is where it stops"?

Like I said, I'm all for only replacing my own life on this Earth, but there is also the desire to produce equally, as well.

Besides. If everyone only had two kids, population would stop growing, and since many don't ever have kids, it would actually begin to shrink. Maybe what's needed at the moment, but I don't stand firm on the grounds that you should ONLY have two, if you'd like to have a boy and girl. Overall, the limit (personally, not legally) should be 3, but striving for 2 isn't really a bad thing. Of course, in time, like I said - that would lead to a shrinking population. Measures could be taken at that time to ensure that the human race continued and thrived. It's easier to start having more kids when you need to than to not have them after you've already had them.

Of course, the rule of 2/3 kids doesn't cover mortality, etc. I said that before. There are many things that would need to be worked out by the person adopting the philosophy.

[Frank Lee]

GDit, why does abortion/murder ALWAYS come up???

[Christ]

'Twas a simple question. Like many other things, it's a topic I'm half-on/half-off about. I'll never fully make up my mind, because there are valid points on both sides, depending on the scenario.

I didn't mean to fuss about it, but it was indeed a question that would ultimately come up if the "2 for you" opinion were ever voiced too loudly.

[Frank Lee]

I think economic sanctions should be assessed for no. 3 on up; maybe the sanctions could be reduced if gonads get disconnected.

[Christ]

After so many, Welfare programs will stop supporting, and may actually investigate, getting CPS involved. I'm not sure CPS is ever the best thing for a child, but I don't agree that one person, or even two, can properly support and nourish, nurture the armies that some couples/singles seem to be having.

This, of course, is dependent on lots of other things, like the state that's being discussed. In PA, I've heard of people being told that they (DPW) would not increase benefits or pay hospital bills involved in the newest children. I've also seen cases (case files) where children have been taken away from parents after investigation, because it had become obvious that the parents weren't properly caring for (nor were they able to, in many cases) the children they'd already had. It was, in that case, in the best interests of the children that they be removed from the home.

I don't know if that qualifies as sanctioning, but it does support my belief.

[jamesqf]

Originally Posted by Christ

The towers have heated surface area equivalent to it's entire structure. Much more surface area than just the few hundred sqft that it takes up on the ground. They're also basically clear, that I've seen, with a turbine on top. All the heat that rises must pass the turbine, which is connected to a generator. They don't lose efficiency from being hot, like solar panels do. In fact, the hotter they get, the better. The heat rising draws in cooler air from the bottom, repeating the process. Best of all, they don't really need the sun directly shining on them. As long as there is a temp differential, they will still produce something.

Huh? That's so full of errors, I don't know where to start. First, solar thermal power plants take up extremely large areas of ground. Sunlight only has about about 700 watts per square meter at ground level, so you aren't going to get megawatts of power unless you cover thousands of square meters of surface. Then you've got the problem of storing heat. Ever try to do that, say keeping your coffee hot for a few hours? Heat conducts. Unless they're planning to build giant thermos bottles (and how much will that cost?), their molten salt is going to cool down in short order...