e_b_ sarver

Very cool! I have seen other, similar designs. HAWT and VAWT designs are even better, however, as they work at much lower wind speeds, and do not kill birds. HAWT is an abbreviation for Horizontal Axis Wind Turbine, and VAWT for Vertical Axis. The most efficent HAWT/VAWT designs are of the helical variety, though there are many styles of turbine out there. As an added bonus, helical HAWT/VAWT turbines are far more aesthetically pleasing than traditional turbine designs. The most efficient form of wind turbine is the maglev VAWT. This is a magnetically levitated, and therefore frictionless turbine. A couple of companies have experimented with such designs, and achieved power almost 1000 times greater than standard wind turbines, given the same input wind speeds and size of turbines. Here's one example: http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:MagLev_Wind_Power_Generator Propeller designs are, frankly, horribly inefficient in comparison to HAWT and VAWT designs, and don't work in low winds. Additionally, the parts wear out quicker. Traditional propeller type designs really don't make much sense in comparison to these much better techniques..

One Solar source that is cheaper than coal: [View:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4h9FLvj2ZJM] Here's the official site for the manufacturer. The parts are cheap, and manufactured from recycled materials. From my understanding, at this point there are several types of Solar Thermal (which is the type of solar at the above video and link) that have a lower cost to build than a coal plant, and lower long-term maintenance costs when compared to coal plants. I had also read that some sources of wind power, the VAWT and HAWT types, can be more cost effective than coal in the long run. Basically, the cost of initially building the plant is higher than coal, but after a decade of operation, the cost is equal, and after two decades, is lower. The reason should be obvious: you don't have to buy coal. Both plants, of course, have maintenance costs. The maintenance costs are higher on traditional wind farms, but on the HAWT and VAWT varieties, about the same as a coal plant. So as time goes on in the long-term, the coal plant continues to have fuel costs, and eventually the wind has "paid for itself" in lack of fuel costs. As a bonus, HAWT and VAWT technologies can be installed on-site, such as on the roofs of commercial buildings, so the power is generated locally. There's an office building down here in Southern California that has a roof covered with HAWT turbines. I could see them from the road as I was driving by. I'll bet they have a zero energy cost in that building, maybe even a surplus being sold back to the electric company, unless they have a server farm in there or something.... Hydroelectric on the large scale remains incredibly expensive, due to the massive costs of developing the plants. Not to mention the ecological devastation they bring. Small scale hydro (also called microhydro) is a great way to power a home, but large scale hydro is incredibly devastating to the environment and super-expensive. Nuclear is a very high-cost method in the long term, due to perpetually rising costs of fuel, waste disposal, and of course, the inusrance problem you mention in the video. Without subsidies and breaks on fossil and nuclear fuels, they're incredibly expensive, and the cost rises as scarcity gets worse. Most of the remaining global supplies of both fossil and nuclear fuels lie outside US borders, making us reliant on foreign energy sources. Not good. The most exciting thing coming on to the scene are so-called "zero point energy" devices and other "over-unity" power devices. You can read more about those on PesWiki.

Check out this infographic that shows energy industry subsidies and tax breaks in the USA. At this point in history, if all government liability loopholes, tax breaks, and subsidies were removed in the energy industry, SOLAR would be the most profitable energy source. Nuclear, coal and oil plants cost more to build and insure than a couple different varieties of the latest solar plants, and require the purchase of fuel that keeps rising in price. Solar plants cost less to build (at least some of them), and have no future fuel costs, and cost less to insure. Without insurance breaks, nuclear is less profitable that solar. Without subsidies, coal and oil are less profitable than solar. Without government, companies would follow the money to solar.

Yes, I am familiar with this line of reasoning and the evidence behind it with regards to mate selection. I have not read the book Red Queen. I do agree that mate selection likely played a large role in the evolution of the human nervous system. I have also read some very compelling evidence with regards to diet and locale that suggest they produced significant pressure on the evolution of hominids, and in particular the nervous system.

I suspect that is not a viable theory because the rate of change in intelligence is very high, and the rate of people violently killing each other is too low. An excellent point! [] I was being facetious, meant to be conveyed by the bias of the last sentence. That probably wasn't clear. Or maybe it was clear, and your facetiousness was not clear to me. [:$] Regardless, I stand corrected!

From Wikipedia: Attempted explanations have included improved nutrition, a trend toward smaller families, better education, greater environmental complexity, and heterosis.[10] Another proposition is greater familiarity with multiple-choice questions and experience with brain-teaser IQ problems. Duration of average schooling has increased steadily. One problem with this explanation is that if comparing older and more recent subjects with similar educational levels, then the IQ gains appear almost undiminished in each such group considered individually.[4] Mathematics has been proposed as particularly important.[11] I wonder, could part of the genetic explanation be that people of lower IQ might be more likely to die in acts of violence, and fail to pass on their DNA? Over time, this would explain both the general trend towards less violence, and the general trend towards greater intelligence. Maybe dumb violent folks don't pass on their genes cause they keep killing each other?