Minkey Boodle
clit-o-rific
- Joined
- Oct 17, 2002
- Posts
- 11,594
Dark chocolate.
Ephemera
- Thread starter trysail
- Start date
trysail
Catch Me Who Can
- Joined
- Nov 8, 2005
- Posts
- 25,593
LUKoil's Yuri Korchagin field in the Caspian Sea—
all this for 570 million BOEs:
http://www.lukoil.com/materials/doc/img_pr/5.htm
Good lord. Edward Moore Kennedy was the son of a philandering swindler, a cheat and a bootlegger and the grandson of a barkeep. Ol' Joe— who tried to surrender to Hitler— would be jailed today.
Edward Moore Kennedy's entire career was based on spending other people's money. He was the personification of hypocrisy. Unlike Mother Teresa, Teddy-boy worked assiduously at maintaining his father's ill-gotten fortune.
He thumbed his nose at the average person. How many of Teddy-boy's children and relatives attended public schools?
Holding Edward Moore Kennedy forth as an example of noblesse oblige is akin to calling George Corley Wallace a civil rights advocate. It represents a profound misunderstanding of the phrase.
Last edited:
trysail
Catch Me Who Can
- Joined
- Nov 8, 2005
- Posts
- 25,593
This is priceless:
Hoffa Warns of Potential Strike in Teamster’s Washington Office
Aug. 10 (Bloomberg) -- James Hoffa, president of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, is bracing for what he called the “embarrassment” of a potential strike by his own employees.
Hoffa, in a letter to officers of the union, warned that contract negotiations with workers in the Washington office “are not going well.” The workers “refuse to acknowledge the current economic conditions,” he said.
About 150 workers in the Washington office of the Teamsters, whose contract expired June 30, are represented by the Office and Professional Employees International Union, said Bret Caldwell, director of communications at the Teamsters.
Hoffa wrote that the union members “have a right to take strike action, and their union knows the embarrassment that such an event would create.”
“However, no amount of embarrassment will cause us to commit to a collective bargaining agreement that jeopardizes the financial health of your international union,” he wrote.
The union, which has negotiated previous contracts with the Teamsters, needs to share in “prudent belt-tightening,” Hoffa said...
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601110&sid=aoZGDDDAJT_0
trysail
Catch Me Who Can
- Joined
- Nov 8, 2005
- Posts
- 25,593
Cool! This is a nice image of the 2003 apparent retrograde motion of Mars:
See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retrograde_and_direct_motion
Last edited:
Byron In Exile
Frederick Fucking Chopin
- Joined
- May 3, 2002
- Posts
- 66,591
*subscribes*
Byron In Exile
Frederick Fucking Chopin
- Joined
- May 3, 2002
- Posts
- 66,591
From http://www.touregypt.net/featurestories/pyramidorientation.htm
Before the physical orientation and layout of a new pyramid took place, considerable planning was needed under the direction of a "royal master builder". Ultimately, the responsibility fell on the vizier, who was typically the head of all royal works. The first step in the process was taken by specialists who would draw up plans for the pyramid on papyrus. After the construction began, plans and sketches were drawn on papyri or flat slabs of limestone. Planners even made models of their projects, as evidenced by a limestone model of a substructure found in the Pyramid of Amenemhet III at Dahshur. After the planning stage, each step of pyramid building was initiated with foundation rituals.
Orientation
Pyramids, unlike many other types of religious structures, required strict orientation to the cardinal points. Pyramid alignment may have been carried out through a number of different means, including some methods we have probably never thought of. The primary theory of how the ancient Egyptians oriented most any building that had to conform to true primary coordinates has been by stellar measurements. This involved building a small, circular wall of perhaps mudbrick that had to be perfectly level at the top. Within the circle, a man would stand and through a straight pole with a forked top called a bay, sight a circumpolar star as it rises. A second man at the perimeter of the small circular wall would then "spot" the wall where the star rose. Using a type of plumb line, or merkhet, he would also spot the mark at the bottom of the wall. When the star set, the process would be repeated. Measuring between the two spots would then provide true north from the center sighting pole.
Recently several other theories have been raised, all of which involve some sort of astronomical measurements. A British scholar named K. Spence believes that the Egyptians used two circumpolar stars (Delta Ursae Majoris and Beta Ursae Minoris or Epsilon Ursae Majoris and Gamma Ursae Minors) Another theory set out by a Slovak Egyptologist, D. Magdolen, believes that the ancient Egyptians oriented their monuments using the sun, by means of wooden stakes and ropes. There is in fact a reference in ancient text referring to "the shadow" and the "stride of Ra".
The sun rises and sets in equal but opposite angles to true north. Using a plumb line, a pole would have been set as vertically as possible. Then, about three hours before noon, its shadow would be measured. This length then becomes the radius of a circle. As the sun rises higher, the shadow shrinks back from the line and then becomes longer in the afternoon. When it reaches the circle again it forms an angle with the morning's line. The bisection of the angle is true north. However, this method would be less accurate then the stellar method, but could be fairly accurate during the solstices.
Creating the Ground Plan
After the primary coordinates were determined, the ground plan would be marked out. Some of the methods used to do so varied from pyramid to pyramid. Here, we examine the means by which the ground plan of the Great Pyramid of Khufu at Giza was determined.
Initially, a reference line along true north was constructed from the orientation process. The next step would be to create a true square with precise right angles. Within Khufu's pyramid, there is actually a massif of natural rock jutting up that was used as part of the pyramid's core. Therefore, measuring the diagonals of the square to check for accuracy was impossible.
We believe that the ancient builders could have achieved a precise right angle in any of three ways. The first method would have involved the use of an A-shaped set square. The set square would have been placed along the established orientation line and the perpendicular taken from the other leg of the square. The set square would then be flipped and the measurements repeated. The exact 90 degree angle would then be taken by taking into account the small error of the angle between the two measurements.
The problem with this method is that no set squares large enough to give a precise angle for the distances have been found in ancient Egypt. The perpendicular measurement it provides would be very short considering that the line would have to be extended some 230 meters (754 ft) in the case of Khufu's pyramid.
A second method would have employed the use of a sacred or Pythagorean triangle. The triangles seem to be present in the design of the Old Kingdom pyramids, but there is no real conclusive evidence of their use. Basically, this triangle uses three equal units on one side, four on the next, and five on the hypotenuse to give a true right angle. At Khufu's pyramid a series of holes along the orientation line are dug at seven cubit (3.675 meters or about 12 ft) intervals, so the triangle probably used these positions in the measurement. In other words, the triangle would have been measured as 21 cubits by 28 cubits with a 35 cubit hypotenuse. This would have resulted in a much longer measurement for the perpendicular line then with the use of a set square. If the unites used were any greater, the measurement would have been interrupted by the rock outcrop.
A third method possibly available to the early Egyptians would have been through the use of intersecting arcs. In this method, two circles would have been sketched by rotating a cord around two points on the orientation line. The intersection of the two circles would then provide a right angle. Some doubt this method was used because the elasticity of the string or rope used to sketch the circles would lead to inaccuracies. However, at Khufu's pyramid, there are a number of post holes dug that might have been used to draw such circles, so the method cannot be ruled out. Furthermore, the Egyptian may have used a rod or other device rather than rope or string to draw the circle, eliminating elasticity.
The Platform
An orientation reference line was set up in a larger square by measuring off the established square ground plan. This was done by digging post holes at measured distances from the inner square in the bedrock and inserting small posts through which a rope or string ran. These holes were dug at about 10 cubit intervals. This outer reference line was needed because the original orientation lines would be erased by building work. Various segments of the reference line could be removed so that building material could be moved into place. Then measurements were taken from the guide line as the material for the platform were put in place so that the the platform was in accord with the initial floor plan.
Laying out the baseline for pyramids
The platform of Khufu's pyramid was made of fine white Turah quality limestone slabs with occasion backing stones of local limestone for leveling. Today, we know that the platform was one of the most important elements to a pyramid's survival over great lengths of time. It also appears that the builders of Khufu's pyramid were well aware of this, but such knowledge seems to have been almost forgotten from time to time. Some later pyramids platforms were not built upon solid bedrock, or the platform was poorly built and those pyramids built atop these poorly constructed platforms did not survive for long.
Not only was the platform required to be laid in a perfect square, but it was also required to be very level. In Khufu's pyramid, the platform is level to within about 2.1 cm (one inch). There were several means that this too could be accomplished. Traditional though, apparently originally conceived by Edwards, suggests the use of water to level the platform. He thought that the ancient Egyptians might have built a mud enclosure around the platform that was then filled with water. A grid of trenches would have been cut at a uniform depth below the water. However, modern Egyptologists believe this method would have been cumbersome at best. The platform would have had to have been chiseled beneath the water. Perhaps a more accepted theory involves channels being cut to form a grid within the platform, which was then filled with water. At the top of the water's surface, the level would be marked along the sides of the channels, and then the platform cut accordingly.
However, Lehner, who must be taken very seriously in any discussion of Giza pyramids, does not believe that water was used to level Khufu's pyramid. In fact, he doubts any water related theories of leveling, mostly because evaporation might cause considerable variations in the measurements. Specifically though, Khufu's pyramid is built on a sloping base, and here, it is the platform itself that is leveled and not the bedrock beneath the platform. In fact, the ancient builders were required to cut down the northwest corner of the platform, while actually building up the opposite, southeast corner.
Another leveling method might have utilized the posts used to build the reference line of the pyramid. These posts could have been made of equal heights, or marked to provide a reference level. Apparently the leveling techniques used in pyramid construction are not well understood at this time.
However, what is understood is that when the Egyptians, such as those who built Khufu's pyramid, were at the top of their skills, the monuments they built could indeed last virtually forever.
Before the physical orientation and layout of a new pyramid took place, considerable planning was needed under the direction of a "royal master builder". Ultimately, the responsibility fell on the vizier, who was typically the head of all royal works. The first step in the process was taken by specialists who would draw up plans for the pyramid on papyrus. After the construction began, plans and sketches were drawn on papyri or flat slabs of limestone. Planners even made models of their projects, as evidenced by a limestone model of a substructure found in the Pyramid of Amenemhet III at Dahshur. After the planning stage, each step of pyramid building was initiated with foundation rituals.
Orientation
Pyramids, unlike many other types of religious structures, required strict orientation to the cardinal points. Pyramid alignment may have been carried out through a number of different means, including some methods we have probably never thought of. The primary theory of how the ancient Egyptians oriented most any building that had to conform to true primary coordinates has been by stellar measurements. This involved building a small, circular wall of perhaps mudbrick that had to be perfectly level at the top. Within the circle, a man would stand and through a straight pole with a forked top called a bay, sight a circumpolar star as it rises. A second man at the perimeter of the small circular wall would then "spot" the wall where the star rose. Using a type of plumb line, or merkhet, he would also spot the mark at the bottom of the wall. When the star set, the process would be repeated. Measuring between the two spots would then provide true north from the center sighting pole.
Recently several other theories have been raised, all of which involve some sort of astronomical measurements. A British scholar named K. Spence believes that the Egyptians used two circumpolar stars (Delta Ursae Majoris and Beta Ursae Minoris or Epsilon Ursae Majoris and Gamma Ursae Minors) Another theory set out by a Slovak Egyptologist, D. Magdolen, believes that the ancient Egyptians oriented their monuments using the sun, by means of wooden stakes and ropes. There is in fact a reference in ancient text referring to "the shadow" and the "stride of Ra".
The sun rises and sets in equal but opposite angles to true north. Using a plumb line, a pole would have been set as vertically as possible. Then, about three hours before noon, its shadow would be measured. This length then becomes the radius of a circle. As the sun rises higher, the shadow shrinks back from the line and then becomes longer in the afternoon. When it reaches the circle again it forms an angle with the morning's line. The bisection of the angle is true north. However, this method would be less accurate then the stellar method, but could be fairly accurate during the solstices.
Creating the Ground Plan
After the primary coordinates were determined, the ground plan would be marked out. Some of the methods used to do so varied from pyramid to pyramid. Here, we examine the means by which the ground plan of the Great Pyramid of Khufu at Giza was determined.
Initially, a reference line along true north was constructed from the orientation process. The next step would be to create a true square with precise right angles. Within Khufu's pyramid, there is actually a massif of natural rock jutting up that was used as part of the pyramid's core. Therefore, measuring the diagonals of the square to check for accuracy was impossible.
We believe that the ancient builders could have achieved a precise right angle in any of three ways. The first method would have involved the use of an A-shaped set square. The set square would have been placed along the established orientation line and the perpendicular taken from the other leg of the square. The set square would then be flipped and the measurements repeated. The exact 90 degree angle would then be taken by taking into account the small error of the angle between the two measurements.
The problem with this method is that no set squares large enough to give a precise angle for the distances have been found in ancient Egypt. The perpendicular measurement it provides would be very short considering that the line would have to be extended some 230 meters (754 ft) in the case of Khufu's pyramid.
A second method would have employed the use of a sacred or Pythagorean triangle. The triangles seem to be present in the design of the Old Kingdom pyramids, but there is no real conclusive evidence of their use. Basically, this triangle uses three equal units on one side, four on the next, and five on the hypotenuse to give a true right angle. At Khufu's pyramid a series of holes along the orientation line are dug at seven cubit (3.675 meters or about 12 ft) intervals, so the triangle probably used these positions in the measurement. In other words, the triangle would have been measured as 21 cubits by 28 cubits with a 35 cubit hypotenuse. This would have resulted in a much longer measurement for the perpendicular line then with the use of a set square. If the unites used were any greater, the measurement would have been interrupted by the rock outcrop.
A third method possibly available to the early Egyptians would have been through the use of intersecting arcs. In this method, two circles would have been sketched by rotating a cord around two points on the orientation line. The intersection of the two circles would then provide a right angle. Some doubt this method was used because the elasticity of the string or rope used to sketch the circles would lead to inaccuracies. However, at Khufu's pyramid, there are a number of post holes dug that might have been used to draw such circles, so the method cannot be ruled out. Furthermore, the Egyptian may have used a rod or other device rather than rope or string to draw the circle, eliminating elasticity.
The Platform
An orientation reference line was set up in a larger square by measuring off the established square ground plan. This was done by digging post holes at measured distances from the inner square in the bedrock and inserting small posts through which a rope or string ran. These holes were dug at about 10 cubit intervals. This outer reference line was needed because the original orientation lines would be erased by building work. Various segments of the reference line could be removed so that building material could be moved into place. Then measurements were taken from the guide line as the material for the platform were put in place so that the the platform was in accord with the initial floor plan.
Laying out the baseline for pyramids
The platform of Khufu's pyramid was made of fine white Turah quality limestone slabs with occasion backing stones of local limestone for leveling. Today, we know that the platform was one of the most important elements to a pyramid's survival over great lengths of time. It also appears that the builders of Khufu's pyramid were well aware of this, but such knowledge seems to have been almost forgotten from time to time. Some later pyramids platforms were not built upon solid bedrock, or the platform was poorly built and those pyramids built atop these poorly constructed platforms did not survive for long.
Not only was the platform required to be laid in a perfect square, but it was also required to be very level. In Khufu's pyramid, the platform is level to within about 2.1 cm (one inch). There were several means that this too could be accomplished. Traditional though, apparently originally conceived by Edwards, suggests the use of water to level the platform. He thought that the ancient Egyptians might have built a mud enclosure around the platform that was then filled with water. A grid of trenches would have been cut at a uniform depth below the water. However, modern Egyptologists believe this method would have been cumbersome at best. The platform would have had to have been chiseled beneath the water. Perhaps a more accepted theory involves channels being cut to form a grid within the platform, which was then filled with water. At the top of the water's surface, the level would be marked along the sides of the channels, and then the platform cut accordingly.
However, Lehner, who must be taken very seriously in any discussion of Giza pyramids, does not believe that water was used to level Khufu's pyramid. In fact, he doubts any water related theories of leveling, mostly because evaporation might cause considerable variations in the measurements. Specifically though, Khufu's pyramid is built on a sloping base, and here, it is the platform itself that is leveled and not the bedrock beneath the platform. In fact, the ancient builders were required to cut down the northwest corner of the platform, while actually building up the opposite, southeast corner.
Another leveling method might have utilized the posts used to build the reference line of the pyramid. These posts could have been made of equal heights, or marked to provide a reference level. Apparently the leveling techniques used in pyramid construction are not well understood at this time.
However, what is understood is that when the Egyptians, such as those who built Khufu's pyramid, were at the top of their skills, the monuments they built could indeed last virtually forever.
Last edited:
W
where
Guest
Byron In Exile
Frederick Fucking Chopin
- Joined
- May 3, 2002
- Posts
- 66,591
What must they have thought?
Cool! This is a nice image of the 2003 apparent retrograde motion of Mars:
See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retrograde_and_direct_motion
With no electricity... watching the skies at night trying to make sense of things...
And a God goes backwards?
trysail
Catch Me Who Can
- Joined
- Nov 8, 2005
- Posts
- 25,593
Jeeezuz, I always thought some of the animal rights folk were well-intentioned but misguided fools. Now I think some of them are outright deranged and dangerous.
_______________________________
NEW YORK, Aug 11 (Reuters) - The chief executive of Swiss drugmaker Novartis AG (NOVN.VX) on Tuesday said animal rights activists engaged in "terrorism" and attempted to block medical progress by burning down his holiday home and desecrating the graves of his relatives.
"When you try to terrorize people and you burn their houses, when you desecrate graves and when you make death threats, to me that is way beyond activism and I would call this clearly terrorism," Daniel Vasella said in an interview on CNBC television.
"These people tried to hinder medical progress and stand in front of new medicines for patients," Vasella said.
Vandals burned his family's holiday home in Austria after soaking both the entrance and exit of the house with gasoline, he said. Vasella and his family, including children ranging in age from 17 to 25, were not at home at the time of the Aug. 3 attack.
Vandals sprayed a Vasella family gravestone with the slogan "Drop HLS Now," police said, a reference to the British animal-testing laboratory Huntingdon Life Sciences that has been a major target of protests by animal rights activists.
"Of course it's highly unpleasant, to say the least, to be attacked so directly and threatened," Vasella said in the television interview. "Of course, the objective is to terrorize and to instill fear, and it has been difficult, especially for the kids ... but we deal with it."
Asked about the desecration of family graves, Vasella said, "It's hurting and a lot of old memories come up of losses I experienced, especially my sister when she died of cancer ... and my father died when I was 13.
"So all these memories come up and, of course, that's the intention. So, you try to deal with it in a rational way, without denying the feelings."
The Austrian Interior Ministry has said a group called Militant Forces Against Huntingdon Life Science has claimed responsibility for the attacks. It said the claim was being investigated.
Last edited:
trysail
Catch Me Who Can
- Joined
- Nov 8, 2005
- Posts
- 25,593
Here's another possibility: mariners familiar with celestial navigation use the [ local apparent ] noon sight to determine latitude. The azimuth** of the sun at its highest elevation during the day is due south ( when one is north of the equator ).
ETA: In an effort to minimize confusion:
**"Used in celestial navigation, an azimuth is the direction of a celestial body from the observer."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Azimuth
Last edited:
trysail
Catch Me Who Can
- Joined
- Nov 8, 2005
- Posts
- 25,593
CHAD COHEN: Yet despite decades of searching for cures, all we can do is treat the symptoms, or in rare cases, perform bone marrow transplants, which are dangerous and carry a high risk of rejection.
GEORGE DALEY: And so this is a condition that we need a new approach for.
CHAD COHEN: Lately, that new approach has involved embryonic stem cells, cells that are "pluripotent," meaning they can grow into just about any cell in the body. When they were discovered, more than a decade ago, it was thought that stem cells could fix, not just sickle cells, but the damaged cells of countless diseases: Parkinson's, diabetes, A.L.S. That's what's driven George Daley, who also heads a stem cell lab, right across the street from his patients.
GEORGE DALEY: Thinking about the potential that this has for changing the way that we not only study disease, but one day treat disease, is really very, very exciting.
CHAD COHEN: But there's a problem. Stem cells, for the most part, come from human embryos, from that time, just after sperm meets egg, when we're made up of just a few dozen cells, and the function of those cells has yet to be determined. The main sources for the embryos are I.V.F. clinics, where surplus embryos are often discarded as medical waste. Still, harvesting the stem cells destroys the embryo and for many, that's morally wrong. Others believe that holding back medical progress is also wrong.
GEORGE DALEY: Here we are, at the dawn of this whole new field, all this excitement, all this possibility, and yet we're working with one hand tied behind our back.
CHAD COHEN: But in 2007, some experiments were conducted that many believe will finally bring the fighting to an end. Japanese researcher Shinya Yamanaka figured out a way to take an ordinary skin cell from an adult, turn back its genetic clock and transform it into the equivalent of an embryonic stem cell, no embryos required. Yamanaka's motivation came when he first glimpsed human embryos under a microscope about 10 years ago.
SHINYA YAMANAKA (Gladstone Institute, University of California, San Francisco): I have two daughters. And I thought, "The differences between those small embryos and my own daughters are very small."
CHAD COHEN: The realization presented some conflict for him, since, as a physician, he believed that embryonic stem cells were his best shot at treating disease.
SHINYA YAMANAKA: To me, treating patients and saving patients is the most important thing to do. But if we can avoid the usage of human embryos, we should avoid.
CHAD COHEN: Ironically, Yamanaka had to use embryonic stem cells in order to find a way to do without them. He started by exploring one of their fundamental properties. Virtually every cell in the human body has the same D.N.A. Heart cells, liver cells, skin cells, all share the same 20,000 genes. During our development as embryos, though, different genes in different cells get switched on and off, in different ways, and that's what creates all the different types of cells in our bodies. It's called cell programming. Yamanaka believed if he could find the gene switches responsible for programming stem cells, he could flip those same switches in adult cells, like skin cells, and re-program them back to the moment before their destinies were determined.
SHINYA YAMANAKA: Each cell has at least 20,000 genes, so that means we have to find those important switches from the 20,000 candidates.
CHAD COHEN: With so many genes to choose from, so many potential combinations, the search could have been infinitely complex.
GEORGE DALEY: Yamanaka's insight was to appreciate that it was a very limited set of genes. And he set out to identify them.
CHAD COHEN: First he reduced 20,000 possible gene candidates down to 100, using on-line databases. But then, the work got harder.
SHINYA YAMANAKA: We spent, like, three years to study the function of those 100 genes.
CHAD COHEN: Were there people saying, "Give up, there's no use in this?"
SHINYA YAMANAKA: Yeah, many people told me that this is going to be very difficult. "You will fail."
CHAD COHEN: Using specially engineered mice, called knockouts, he tested each gene's ability to make pluripotent stem cells, eliminating them, one by one. After more than three years, culturing hundreds of thousands of cells, Yamanaka narrowed the gene pool down to 24 genes, and finally four. Then came the moment of truth: getting these four painstakingly selected genes to make stem cells. He took some skin cells from an adult mouse, then used a virus to insert the four genes inside them. Two weeks later the skin cells in the Petri dish had completely transformed.
SHINYA YAMANAKA: We saw cells which looked like stem cells. So it was...at the moment, you know we were very, very excited, and we were very surprised.
CHAD COHEN: Yamanaka dubbed the cells "Induced Pluripotent Stem cells," or I.P.S. cells, and found they were virtually indistinguishable from embryonic stem cells.
I can't see a difference; I wouldn't expect to be able to see a difference, but...
SHINYA YAMANAKA: No, we can't see differences either. So these embryonic stem cells and Induced Pluripotent Stem cells are indistinguishable. They are the same cells.
CHAD COHEN: It's amazing.
GEORGE DALEY: Yamanaka's experiment was bold, some might say foolhardy. I think it's the type of experiment that would be laughed out of the room in a standard peer review study section. You would never have gotten your grant funded with that experiment.
CHAD COHEN: Really?
GEORGE DALEY: And now it's probably going to win Shinya Yamanaka a Nobel Prize.
CHAD COHEN: Creating stem cells without an embryo in mice certainly made headlines in the scientific community, but less than a year later came the news that caught the world's attention. Based on Yamanaka's work, three independent scientists, James Thomson in Wisconsin, George Daley in Boston and Yamanaka, himself, transformed human skin cells into I.P.S. stem cells. It was a monumental breakthrough, and in George Daley's case, the doctor even experimented on himself.
DERMATOLOGIST: So what we're going to be doing is just obtaining a small biopsy of the skin and...
GEORGE DALEY: We have a protocol where we can have anyone walk in, roll up their sleeve...we take a very small skin biopsy, smaller than the eraser at the end of a pencil.
DERMATOLOGIST: We'll just snip this, and we're good to go.
GEORGE DALEY: Fantastic.
And those skin cells are then put right into a Petri dish, and then, within a week, all of a sudden, this huge bloom of cells appears. And then you bring into them the three or four genes that do the re-programming.
What's really remarkable is that just simply putting those genes into the cell and making them work, starts this whole process. It takes those stable, specialized skin cells and erases all the skin functions, and reactivates, enlivens the embryonic functions and turns that skin cell back into a pluripotent embryonic cell. That's really...
CHAD COHEN: Back in time, basically.
GEORGE DALEY: It's back in time, I mean, it's like a whole altered universe. I mean, it's really changed the fundamental nature of that cell.
How many times would you say you've been in the hospital your whole life?
STEPHANIE TERMITUS: I can't even say it's so many; ten times a year?
CHAD COHEN: So, how long before this technology actually helps patients like Stephanie? Well, some serious challenges will have to be overcome first.
For one thing, that virus to shovel Yamanaka's four genes into adult cells can mutate a patient's D.N.A. and cause cancer. At least one of the four genes is an actual oncogene; it definitely causes cancer. And a high percentage of the mice created with these stem cells did develop cancer. But the promise of these cells far outweighs their problems, and, as we speak, researchers around the world are figuring out how to safely use them. Late in 2007, Rudolph Jaenisch, of the Whitehead Institute at M.I.T, demonstrated a powerful application of I.P.S. cells. He used them to cure sickle cell anemia in mice. To do it, he first had to give the mice the disease.
So you were able, basically, to give the mice sickle cell disease, and use that as a model?
RUDOLPH JAENISCH (Whitehead Institute, Massachusetts Institute of Technology): Yes. These mice were highly anemic. They had just stopped growing. They were very...rather small. They wouldn't gain weight, they would die early. I mean it was...it's a very faithful model of this major human disease.
You would take then a skin cell from this mouse and re-program it to I.P.S. cells.
CHAD COHEN: Jaenisch made the stem cells using Yamanaka's same four gene switches, but this time he removed that nasty oncogene once it had done its job.
RUDOLPH JAENISCH: So now these I.P.S. cells they didn't need anymore, they didn't have that oncogene. So that was useful. And then the next thing was we repaired the genetic defect by gene targeting.
CHAD COHEN: Jaenisch targeted that single sickle cell mutation, fixed it, then prompted the stem cells to become blood cells and injected them back into the mice. Since these cells came from the very same mice, they were a perfect match; there was no chance of rejection.
RUDOLPH JAENISCH: And to our—really—delight, the blood of the mouse totally normalized, and they begin to, began to gain weight. They have lived. As far as we know, they have no problem, so that they're totally cured, these mice, from the sickle cell condition.
CHAD COHEN: So have these new stem cells made embryonic stem cells obsolete? Well, until we know for sure whether they can faithfully grow into all the different cell types, the answer is definitely no.
GEORGE DALEY: I'm not willing to concede that I.P.S. cells will ever fully replace human embryonic stem cells. The embryonic stem cell line remains the gold standard.
GEORGE DALEY: And so this is a condition that we need a new approach for.
CHAD COHEN: Lately, that new approach has involved embryonic stem cells, cells that are "pluripotent," meaning they can grow into just about any cell in the body. When they were discovered, more than a decade ago, it was thought that stem cells could fix, not just sickle cells, but the damaged cells of countless diseases: Parkinson's, diabetes, A.L.S. That's what's driven George Daley, who also heads a stem cell lab, right across the street from his patients.
GEORGE DALEY: Thinking about the potential that this has for changing the way that we not only study disease, but one day treat disease, is really very, very exciting.
CHAD COHEN: But there's a problem. Stem cells, for the most part, come from human embryos, from that time, just after sperm meets egg, when we're made up of just a few dozen cells, and the function of those cells has yet to be determined. The main sources for the embryos are I.V.F. clinics, where surplus embryos are often discarded as medical waste. Still, harvesting the stem cells destroys the embryo and for many, that's morally wrong. Others believe that holding back medical progress is also wrong.
GEORGE DALEY: Here we are, at the dawn of this whole new field, all this excitement, all this possibility, and yet we're working with one hand tied behind our back.
CHAD COHEN: But in 2007, some experiments were conducted that many believe will finally bring the fighting to an end. Japanese researcher Shinya Yamanaka figured out a way to take an ordinary skin cell from an adult, turn back its genetic clock and transform it into the equivalent of an embryonic stem cell, no embryos required. Yamanaka's motivation came when he first glimpsed human embryos under a microscope about 10 years ago.
SHINYA YAMANAKA (Gladstone Institute, University of California, San Francisco): I have two daughters. And I thought, "The differences between those small embryos and my own daughters are very small."
CHAD COHEN: The realization presented some conflict for him, since, as a physician, he believed that embryonic stem cells were his best shot at treating disease.
SHINYA YAMANAKA: To me, treating patients and saving patients is the most important thing to do. But if we can avoid the usage of human embryos, we should avoid.
CHAD COHEN: Ironically, Yamanaka had to use embryonic stem cells in order to find a way to do without them. He started by exploring one of their fundamental properties. Virtually every cell in the human body has the same D.N.A. Heart cells, liver cells, skin cells, all share the same 20,000 genes. During our development as embryos, though, different genes in different cells get switched on and off, in different ways, and that's what creates all the different types of cells in our bodies. It's called cell programming. Yamanaka believed if he could find the gene switches responsible for programming stem cells, he could flip those same switches in adult cells, like skin cells, and re-program them back to the moment before their destinies were determined.
SHINYA YAMANAKA: Each cell has at least 20,000 genes, so that means we have to find those important switches from the 20,000 candidates.
CHAD COHEN: With so many genes to choose from, so many potential combinations, the search could have been infinitely complex.
GEORGE DALEY: Yamanaka's insight was to appreciate that it was a very limited set of genes. And he set out to identify them.
CHAD COHEN: First he reduced 20,000 possible gene candidates down to 100, using on-line databases. But then, the work got harder.
SHINYA YAMANAKA: We spent, like, three years to study the function of those 100 genes.
CHAD COHEN: Were there people saying, "Give up, there's no use in this?"
SHINYA YAMANAKA: Yeah, many people told me that this is going to be very difficult. "You will fail."
CHAD COHEN: Using specially engineered mice, called knockouts, he tested each gene's ability to make pluripotent stem cells, eliminating them, one by one. After more than three years, culturing hundreds of thousands of cells, Yamanaka narrowed the gene pool down to 24 genes, and finally four. Then came the moment of truth: getting these four painstakingly selected genes to make stem cells. He took some skin cells from an adult mouse, then used a virus to insert the four genes inside them. Two weeks later the skin cells in the Petri dish had completely transformed.
SHINYA YAMANAKA: We saw cells which looked like stem cells. So it was...at the moment, you know we were very, very excited, and we were very surprised.
CHAD COHEN: Yamanaka dubbed the cells "Induced Pluripotent Stem cells," or I.P.S. cells, and found they were virtually indistinguishable from embryonic stem cells.
I can't see a difference; I wouldn't expect to be able to see a difference, but...
SHINYA YAMANAKA: No, we can't see differences either. So these embryonic stem cells and Induced Pluripotent Stem cells are indistinguishable. They are the same cells.
CHAD COHEN: It's amazing.
GEORGE DALEY: Yamanaka's experiment was bold, some might say foolhardy. I think it's the type of experiment that would be laughed out of the room in a standard peer review study section. You would never have gotten your grant funded with that experiment.
CHAD COHEN: Really?
GEORGE DALEY: And now it's probably going to win Shinya Yamanaka a Nobel Prize.
CHAD COHEN: Creating stem cells without an embryo in mice certainly made headlines in the scientific community, but less than a year later came the news that caught the world's attention. Based on Yamanaka's work, three independent scientists, James Thomson in Wisconsin, George Daley in Boston and Yamanaka, himself, transformed human skin cells into I.P.S. stem cells. It was a monumental breakthrough, and in George Daley's case, the doctor even experimented on himself.
DERMATOLOGIST: So what we're going to be doing is just obtaining a small biopsy of the skin and...
GEORGE DALEY: We have a protocol where we can have anyone walk in, roll up their sleeve...we take a very small skin biopsy, smaller than the eraser at the end of a pencil.
DERMATOLOGIST: We'll just snip this, and we're good to go.
GEORGE DALEY: Fantastic.
And those skin cells are then put right into a Petri dish, and then, within a week, all of a sudden, this huge bloom of cells appears. And then you bring into them the three or four genes that do the re-programming.
What's really remarkable is that just simply putting those genes into the cell and making them work, starts this whole process. It takes those stable, specialized skin cells and erases all the skin functions, and reactivates, enlivens the embryonic functions and turns that skin cell back into a pluripotent embryonic cell. That's really...
CHAD COHEN: Back in time, basically.
GEORGE DALEY: It's back in time, I mean, it's like a whole altered universe. I mean, it's really changed the fundamental nature of that cell.
How many times would you say you've been in the hospital your whole life?
STEPHANIE TERMITUS: I can't even say it's so many; ten times a year?
CHAD COHEN: So, how long before this technology actually helps patients like Stephanie? Well, some serious challenges will have to be overcome first.
For one thing, that virus to shovel Yamanaka's four genes into adult cells can mutate a patient's D.N.A. and cause cancer. At least one of the four genes is an actual oncogene; it definitely causes cancer. And a high percentage of the mice created with these stem cells did develop cancer. But the promise of these cells far outweighs their problems, and, as we speak, researchers around the world are figuring out how to safely use them. Late in 2007, Rudolph Jaenisch, of the Whitehead Institute at M.I.T, demonstrated a powerful application of I.P.S. cells. He used them to cure sickle cell anemia in mice. To do it, he first had to give the mice the disease.
So you were able, basically, to give the mice sickle cell disease, and use that as a model?
RUDOLPH JAENISCH (Whitehead Institute, Massachusetts Institute of Technology): Yes. These mice were highly anemic. They had just stopped growing. They were very...rather small. They wouldn't gain weight, they would die early. I mean it was...it's a very faithful model of this major human disease.
You would take then a skin cell from this mouse and re-program it to I.P.S. cells.
CHAD COHEN: Jaenisch made the stem cells using Yamanaka's same four gene switches, but this time he removed that nasty oncogene once it had done its job.
RUDOLPH JAENISCH: So now these I.P.S. cells they didn't need anymore, they didn't have that oncogene. So that was useful. And then the next thing was we repaired the genetic defect by gene targeting.
CHAD COHEN: Jaenisch targeted that single sickle cell mutation, fixed it, then prompted the stem cells to become blood cells and injected them back into the mice. Since these cells came from the very same mice, they were a perfect match; there was no chance of rejection.
RUDOLPH JAENISCH: And to our—really—delight, the blood of the mouse totally normalized, and they begin to, began to gain weight. They have lived. As far as we know, they have no problem, so that they're totally cured, these mice, from the sickle cell condition.
CHAD COHEN: So have these new stem cells made embryonic stem cells obsolete? Well, until we know for sure whether they can faithfully grow into all the different cell types, the answer is definitely no.
GEORGE DALEY: I'm not willing to concede that I.P.S. cells will ever fully replace human embryonic stem cells. The embryonic stem cell line remains the gold standard.
trysail
Catch Me Who Can
- Joined
- Nov 8, 2005
- Posts
- 25,593
WORD OF THE DAY:
Snarge
Etymology:
Portmanteau of snot and garbage
Noun
Singular
Definition:
The remains of a bird after it has collided with an airplane (bird strike), especially a turbine engine.
Usage Example:
2009 January 25, Matthew L. Wald, “Identifying the Bird After a Strike, When Not Much Bird Is Left”[1], New York Times:
"Arriving mostly in sealed plastic bags, these included birds’ feet, whole feathers or tiny bits of down, and pulverized bird guts, known as snarge..."
From Wikipedia:
The force of the impact on an aircraft depends on the weight of the animal and the speed difference and direction at the impact. The energy of the impact increases with the square of the speed difference. Hence a low-speed impact of a small bird on a car windshield causes relatively little damage. High speed impacts, as with jet aircraft, can cause considerable damage and even catastrophic failure to the vehicle. The energy of a 5 kg (11 lb) bird moving at a relative velocity of 275 km/h (171 mph) approximately equals the energy of a 100 kg (220 lb) weight dropped from a height of 15 metres (49 ft).
Snarge
Etymology:
Portmanteau of snot and garbage
Noun
Singular
Definition:
The remains of a bird after it has collided with an airplane (bird strike), especially a turbine engine.
Usage Example:
2009 January 25, Matthew L. Wald, “Identifying the Bird After a Strike, When Not Much Bird Is Left”[1], New York Times:
"Arriving mostly in sealed plastic bags, these included birds’ feet, whole feathers or tiny bits of down, and pulverized bird guts, known as snarge..."
From Wikipedia:
The force of the impact on an aircraft depends on the weight of the animal and the speed difference and direction at the impact. The energy of the impact increases with the square of the speed difference. Hence a low-speed impact of a small bird on a car windshield causes relatively little damage. High speed impacts, as with jet aircraft, can cause considerable damage and even catastrophic failure to the vehicle. The energy of a 5 kg (11 lb) bird moving at a relative velocity of 275 km/h (171 mph) approximately equals the energy of a 100 kg (220 lb) weight dropped from a height of 15 metres (49 ft).
trysail
Catch Me Who Can
- Joined
- Nov 8, 2005
- Posts
- 25,593
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=111843426
A Prison Guard Union With Political Muscle
In three decades, the California Correctional Peace Officers Association has become one of the most powerful political forces in California. The union has contributed millions of dollars to support "three strikes" and other laws that lengthen sentences and increase parole sanctions. It donated $1 million to Wilson after he backed the three strikes law.
And the result for the union has been dramatic. Since the laws went into effect and the inmate population boomed, the union grew from 2,600 officers to 45,000 officers. Salaries jumped: In 1980, the average officer earned $15,000 a year; today, one in every 10 officers makes more than $100,000 a year.
Lance Corcoran, spokesman for the union, says it does what is best for its members.
"We have advocated successfully for our members," he said.
But he disputes that the union has purposefully tried to increase the prison population.
"The notion that we are some prison industrial complex, or that we are recruiting felons or trying to change laws, is a misnomer," he said.
Money And Influence
Campaign records, however, show much of the funding to promote and push for the passage of the laws came from a political action committee the union created. It is run out of a group called Crime Victims United of California.
Its director, Harriet Salarno, says the committee is independent from the union. But a review of the PAC's financial records shows the PAC has not received a donation from another group besides the union since 2004.
Corcoran does not deny that the two are closely connected.
"We support a number of victims' rights groups," he said.
When asked why the correctional officers union is involved in victims' rights at all, Corcoran said: "There are people that think that there's some sort of ulterior motive, but the reality is we simply want to make sure [the victims'] voices are heard."
But Corcoran acknowledges that the union has benefited from the increase in the prison population after these laws passed.
"We've had the opportunity to grow," Corcoran says, "and that has brought with it both success and criticism."
Secret Dealings With The Governor
Woodford says she stepped down as secretary of the corrections department when she found out that the union had been going on behind her back to negotiate directly with the governor's office.
"The union is incredibly powerful," Woodford says.
Former Secretary Roderick Hickman resigned for the same reason in February 2006.
"The biggest problem that I had was the relationship that I had with the union," Hickman says.
Hickman says the union was able to control the department's policy decisions, including undermining efforts to divert offenders from prison and reduce the prison population.
"Maybe I was just impatient," he says, "or it wasn't going to go fast enough, but [the department] is still in the same place I left it, with an over $8 billion budget. Now it's over $10 billion."
Today, 70 percent of that budget goes to pay salaries and benefits to the union and staff. Just 5 percent of the budget goes to education and vocational programs — the kind of programs that study after study in the past 10 years has found will keep inmates from returning to prison.
Shop Talk: A Chance To Cross Race Lines
From the instant you walk through the metal doors of the mill and cabinetry workshop at Folsom, you get a different feeling from other parts of the prison. In the shop on a recent day, a group of black, white and Latino inmates are bent over a table, talking to each other, discussing measurements for a conference table.
"When we're down here, we put all the politics to the side," says inmate Derrick Poole as he works on the table's legs. "It gives us a place to go where we can we can get out of the prison politics gang, where we don't get along, where we don't socialize outside our race. We socialize outside our race here."
Poole is spending nine years at Folsom for drug possession with intent to sell. In his life, he has been released from prison at least six times that he can remember. It hasn't worked out well.
"When I got out, you kind of lose your social skills," Poole said. "You get used to segregating yourself. You already weren't learned on the street. Then you come in here and you're not learning, and now your mind is more hollow, more empty."
Poole got very lucky this time, beating out hundreds of others to land a spot among just 27 inmates in the cabinetry program. When he's done, Poole will be an accredited woodworker with his GED.
Most of the men in Folsom won't be so fortunate. Just across from the cabinetry shop, program administrator and school Principal Jean Bracy sits in her makeshift office next to the welding class. She knows the statistics by heart.
"I have 1,797 inmates who read below the 9th grade level; 394 of those read below the 4th grade level," Bracy says. "When we put them back out on the streets, they're not employable."
And back on the streets is where 85 percent of all California's inmates are going one day when their sentences run out, regardless of whether they spent their time in prison dealing drugs and running a gang or learning how to weld.
Bracy only has a handful of vocational programs left, enough to reach less than 10 percent of Folsom's inmates — and the state plans to cut even that in half in the next few weeks.
"I think this is the worst I've ever seen it," Bracy says.
'A Merry-Go-Round'
It only costs her about $100,000 to run these programs — not even a blip in a $10 billion-a-year prison budget. But, says Bracy, the programs are always the first to go. Sometimes she almost feels like giving up.
"It's just not cost-effective to throw men and women in prison and then do nothing with them," she said. "And shame on us for thinking that's safety. It's not public safety. You lock them up and do nothing with them. They go out not even equal to what they came in but worse."
The numbers bear that out, with 90,000 inmates returning to California's prisons every year.
But compare that to the Braille program here at Folsom. Inmates are learning to translate books for the blind. In 20 years, not a single inmate who has been part of the program has ever returned to prison. This year, the program has been cut back to 19 inmates.
Out on the prison yard, one of the oldtimers, an inmate named Ed Steward — or "Lefty" — sits in old chair in the only bit of shade on the dusty dirt field. He watches the inmates stand in groups by their race and shakes his head.
"Nowadays, you know, the kids are just coming through this like it's a merry-go-round," he said. "Like there's nothing to it."
Most of these inmates here on this yard aren't here for serious or violent crimes. The number of inmates incarcerated in California's prisons for murder, assault or rape has been relatively unchanged in two decades. The difference is this yard is now packed with drug dealers and drug users, car thieves and shoplifters who stole something worth more than $500.
What Used To Be
But all across this prison are signs of what this place once was — when administrators came from New York and Texas to find out how Folsom kept its violence so low and its inmates from coming back.
There's the deserted shop where inmates used to train to be butchers; it was closed when the prison couldn't afford to remove the asbestos.
Its thriving medical facility was shuttered when it couldn't keep up with thousands of new inmates.
And hovering above the prison is China Hill, a now-barren field where inmates once trained to become landscapers. The prison can't afford to pay the teacher.
Warden Michael Evans can see China Hill just outside his office. Its meaning is not lost on him.
"If I have a dog and I put him in a cage and I beat [him] regularly, ultimately [it] will bite me when I open that door," he said.
After three decades working in corrections, Evans says he has come to one conclusion.
"I think that prisons should be a place where an individual has the opportunity to change if they choose to," he said, "and we move forward from there."
For now, California is at a standstill, unable to find the money to move forward with a different strategy, unable to move backward to a time when it didn't need one.
A Prison Guard Union With Political Muscle
In three decades, the California Correctional Peace Officers Association has become one of the most powerful political forces in California. The union has contributed millions of dollars to support "three strikes" and other laws that lengthen sentences and increase parole sanctions. It donated $1 million to Wilson after he backed the three strikes law.
And the result for the union has been dramatic. Since the laws went into effect and the inmate population boomed, the union grew from 2,600 officers to 45,000 officers. Salaries jumped: In 1980, the average officer earned $15,000 a year; today, one in every 10 officers makes more than $100,000 a year.
Lance Corcoran, spokesman for the union, says it does what is best for its members.
"We have advocated successfully for our members," he said.
But he disputes that the union has purposefully tried to increase the prison population.
"The notion that we are some prison industrial complex, or that we are recruiting felons or trying to change laws, is a misnomer," he said.
Money And Influence
Campaign records, however, show much of the funding to promote and push for the passage of the laws came from a political action committee the union created. It is run out of a group called Crime Victims United of California.
Its director, Harriet Salarno, says the committee is independent from the union. But a review of the PAC's financial records shows the PAC has not received a donation from another group besides the union since 2004.
Corcoran does not deny that the two are closely connected.
"We support a number of victims' rights groups," he said.
When asked why the correctional officers union is involved in victims' rights at all, Corcoran said: "There are people that think that there's some sort of ulterior motive, but the reality is we simply want to make sure [the victims'] voices are heard."
But Corcoran acknowledges that the union has benefited from the increase in the prison population after these laws passed.
"We've had the opportunity to grow," Corcoran says, "and that has brought with it both success and criticism."
Secret Dealings With The Governor
Woodford says she stepped down as secretary of the corrections department when she found out that the union had been going on behind her back to negotiate directly with the governor's office.
"The union is incredibly powerful," Woodford says.
Former Secretary Roderick Hickman resigned for the same reason in February 2006.
"The biggest problem that I had was the relationship that I had with the union," Hickman says.
Hickman says the union was able to control the department's policy decisions, including undermining efforts to divert offenders from prison and reduce the prison population.
"Maybe I was just impatient," he says, "or it wasn't going to go fast enough, but [the department] is still in the same place I left it, with an over $8 billion budget. Now it's over $10 billion."
Today, 70 percent of that budget goes to pay salaries and benefits to the union and staff. Just 5 percent of the budget goes to education and vocational programs — the kind of programs that study after study in the past 10 years has found will keep inmates from returning to prison.
Shop Talk: A Chance To Cross Race Lines
From the instant you walk through the metal doors of the mill and cabinetry workshop at Folsom, you get a different feeling from other parts of the prison. In the shop on a recent day, a group of black, white and Latino inmates are bent over a table, talking to each other, discussing measurements for a conference table.
"When we're down here, we put all the politics to the side," says inmate Derrick Poole as he works on the table's legs. "It gives us a place to go where we can we can get out of the prison politics gang, where we don't get along, where we don't socialize outside our race. We socialize outside our race here."
Poole is spending nine years at Folsom for drug possession with intent to sell. In his life, he has been released from prison at least six times that he can remember. It hasn't worked out well.
"When I got out, you kind of lose your social skills," Poole said. "You get used to segregating yourself. You already weren't learned on the street. Then you come in here and you're not learning, and now your mind is more hollow, more empty."
Poole got very lucky this time, beating out hundreds of others to land a spot among just 27 inmates in the cabinetry program. When he's done, Poole will be an accredited woodworker with his GED.
Most of the men in Folsom won't be so fortunate. Just across from the cabinetry shop, program administrator and school Principal Jean Bracy sits in her makeshift office next to the welding class. She knows the statistics by heart.
"I have 1,797 inmates who read below the 9th grade level; 394 of those read below the 4th grade level," Bracy says. "When we put them back out on the streets, they're not employable."
And back on the streets is where 85 percent of all California's inmates are going one day when their sentences run out, regardless of whether they spent their time in prison dealing drugs and running a gang or learning how to weld.
Bracy only has a handful of vocational programs left, enough to reach less than 10 percent of Folsom's inmates — and the state plans to cut even that in half in the next few weeks.
"I think this is the worst I've ever seen it," Bracy says.
'A Merry-Go-Round'
It only costs her about $100,000 to run these programs — not even a blip in a $10 billion-a-year prison budget. But, says Bracy, the programs are always the first to go. Sometimes she almost feels like giving up.
"It's just not cost-effective to throw men and women in prison and then do nothing with them," she said. "And shame on us for thinking that's safety. It's not public safety. You lock them up and do nothing with them. They go out not even equal to what they came in but worse."
The numbers bear that out, with 90,000 inmates returning to California's prisons every year.
But compare that to the Braille program here at Folsom. Inmates are learning to translate books for the blind. In 20 years, not a single inmate who has been part of the program has ever returned to prison. This year, the program has been cut back to 19 inmates.
Out on the prison yard, one of the oldtimers, an inmate named Ed Steward — or "Lefty" — sits in old chair in the only bit of shade on the dusty dirt field. He watches the inmates stand in groups by their race and shakes his head.
"Nowadays, you know, the kids are just coming through this like it's a merry-go-round," he said. "Like there's nothing to it."
Most of these inmates here on this yard aren't here for serious or violent crimes. The number of inmates incarcerated in California's prisons for murder, assault or rape has been relatively unchanged in two decades. The difference is this yard is now packed with drug dealers and drug users, car thieves and shoplifters who stole something worth more than $500.
What Used To Be
But all across this prison are signs of what this place once was — when administrators came from New York and Texas to find out how Folsom kept its violence so low and its inmates from coming back.
There's the deserted shop where inmates used to train to be butchers; it was closed when the prison couldn't afford to remove the asbestos.
Its thriving medical facility was shuttered when it couldn't keep up with thousands of new inmates.
And hovering above the prison is China Hill, a now-barren field where inmates once trained to become landscapers. The prison can't afford to pay the teacher.
Warden Michael Evans can see China Hill just outside his office. Its meaning is not lost on him.
"If I have a dog and I put him in a cage and I beat [him] regularly, ultimately [it] will bite me when I open that door," he said.
After three decades working in corrections, Evans says he has come to one conclusion.
"I think that prisons should be a place where an individual has the opportunity to change if they choose to," he said, "and we move forward from there."
For now, California is at a standstill, unable to find the money to move forward with a different strategy, unable to move backward to a time when it didn't need one.
Byron In Exile
Frederick Fucking Chopin
- Joined
- May 3, 2002
- Posts
- 66,591
California is fucking done. This State is bankrupt, officially. It can't move forward with anything. Wait until Obamacare gets passed... that'll be the final nail in the coffin.
trysail
Catch Me Who Can
- Joined
- Nov 8, 2005
- Posts
- 25,593
Oct. 6 (Bloomberg) --
... The hearings ``are all about rich people getting money,'' said Darrell Issa (R., Cal ), a Waxman critic, in an interview on Oct. 3. ``Henry Waxman hates rich people.''
Jezuz H. Keeeerist. I go all the way back to remote teletype terminals ( yes, with a paper punch tape— does that need to be explained to the young pups? )
Ayuh, all the way back to assembly language, Basic, COBOL and Fortran. Other than adding 2 + 2 and drawing lines, computers weren't especially useful. An IBM 1163 card reader could be taught to sort Hollerith cards which was a nice trick but not especially useful. One needed to join the priesthood in order to be granted admission to the inner sanctum of the glass-walled and climate controlled room housing the IBM 360; an ID card sufficed for access to the card punch machines.
For a while, "distributed data processing" and "minicomputers" were all the rage ( y'all remember Data General, Digital Equipment and Datapoint, don't you? )
Do you remember QYX ( yes— once upon a time, as hard as it might be to believe— Exxon actually went into the word processing business )? Any of y'all ever heard of Wang?
Then there was DEC's PDP machines. ... and Osborne ... and Commodore ... and the Tandy/Radio Shack TRS ... and Compuserve ... and the "The Source" ... and— god help us all— AOL ... and NeXT ... and McIntosh ... and Lisa ... and the IBM XT ... and Netscape ... and Yahoo ... and Google ...
... and VisiCalc ... and Lotus 1-2-3 ( v 2.2 ) ... and Excel 2000 ... and Excel 2007... and HTML ... and RPN ( for H-P's programmable financial calculators ) ... and PFS Write.
I was a quantitative financial analyst ( no, not one of the nutjob Kondratieff wave types, not one of the 200 DMA "snake oil" types, not one of the Fibonacci crackpots nor one of the "technical" charlatans ) and NOT, for god's sake, one of the boneheaded lunatics who put together the toxic alphabet soup garbage of CDOs, MBSs, CDSs. I was a "number cruncher" using an enormous database and immense computing power to find dominant, unlevered, easily understood, seasoned companies that could ( and probably should ) be held "forever" when they became available at attractive valuations.
To this day, I view computers as serious number crunching tools and look askance at their use for game playing, boom boxes, video or image editing, television, instant messaging or other purely entertainment uses ( do you really have to ask what I think of Facebook or Twitter? ) If you want a digital imaging machine, buy something that's dedicated to that use. Unfortunately, the marketeers always end up insisting on "something for everyone"/"one size fits all" and that's how we end up with bloatware and craplets. What fucking genius decided to dispense with numeric keypads on keyboards? I'd like to shoot the motherfucker.
... The hearings ``are all about rich people getting money,'' said Darrell Issa (R., Cal ), a Waxman critic, in an interview on Oct. 3. ``Henry Waxman hates rich people.''
****
_____________________________________________________________________Jezuz H. Keeeerist. I go all the way back to remote teletype terminals ( yes, with a paper punch tape— does that need to be explained to the young pups? )
Ayuh, all the way back to assembly language, Basic, COBOL and Fortran. Other than adding 2 + 2 and drawing lines, computers weren't especially useful. An IBM 1163 card reader could be taught to sort Hollerith cards which was a nice trick but not especially useful. One needed to join the priesthood in order to be granted admission to the inner sanctum of the glass-walled and climate controlled room housing the IBM 360; an ID card sufficed for access to the card punch machines.
For a while, "distributed data processing" and "minicomputers" were all the rage ( y'all remember Data General, Digital Equipment and Datapoint, don't you? )
Do you remember QYX ( yes— once upon a time, as hard as it might be to believe— Exxon actually went into the word processing business )? Any of y'all ever heard of Wang?
Then there was DEC's PDP machines. ... and Osborne ... and Commodore ... and the Tandy/Radio Shack TRS ... and Compuserve ... and the "The Source" ... and— god help us all— AOL ... and NeXT ... and McIntosh ... and Lisa ... and the IBM XT ... and Netscape ... and Yahoo ... and Google ...
... and VisiCalc ... and Lotus 1-2-3 ( v 2.2 ) ... and Excel 2000 ... and Excel 2007... and HTML ... and RPN ( for H-P's programmable financial calculators ) ... and PFS Write.
I was a quantitative financial analyst ( no, not one of the nutjob Kondratieff wave types, not one of the 200 DMA "snake oil" types, not one of the Fibonacci crackpots nor one of the "technical" charlatans ) and NOT, for god's sake, one of the boneheaded lunatics who put together the toxic alphabet soup garbage of CDOs, MBSs, CDSs. I was a "number cruncher" using an enormous database and immense computing power to find dominant, unlevered, easily understood, seasoned companies that could ( and probably should ) be held "forever" when they became available at attractive valuations.
To this day, I view computers as serious number crunching tools and look askance at their use for game playing, boom boxes, video or image editing, television, instant messaging or other purely entertainment uses ( do you really have to ask what I think of Facebook or Twitter? ) If you want a digital imaging machine, buy something that's dedicated to that use. Unfortunately, the marketeers always end up insisting on "something for everyone"/"one size fits all" and that's how we end up with bloatware and craplets. What fucking genius decided to dispense with numeric keypads on keyboards? I'd like to shoot the motherfucker.
Last edited:
trysail
Catch Me Who Can
- Joined
- Nov 8, 2005
- Posts
- 25,593
Pardon me while I puke.
"A patriot is one who loves his country... and expects to be paid for it."
-H. L. Mencken
[ emphasis mine ]
( Fair Use Excerpt )
Aug. 14 (Bloomberg) -- If there is any doubt that President Barack Obama’s plan to overhaul U.S. health care is the hottest topic in Congress, just ask the 3,300 lobbyists who have lined up to work on the issue.
That’s six lobbyists for each of the 535 members of the House and Senate, according to Senate records, and three times the number of people registered to lobby on defense. More than 1,500 organizations have health-care lobbyists, and about three more are signing up each day. Every one of the 10 biggest lobbying firms by revenue is involved in an effort that could affect 17 percent of the U.S. economy...
Full article: http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601110&sid=aZdbr0YXz5jI
The only thing the U.S. produces is: noise, pizzas, ambulance chasers, swindlers and influence peddlars. No wonder the USD continues to lose value.
Byron In Exile
Frederick Fucking Chopin
- Joined
- May 3, 2002
- Posts
- 66,591
This is California right now.
The farms are being starved of water.
It all goes to Los Angeles and San Francicso, which produce nothing...
Meanwhile, almond orchards which take eight years to produce are being left to die.
Byron In Exile
Frederick Fucking Chopin
- Joined
- May 3, 2002
- Posts
- 66,591
The most productive part of the state is being turned into a desert.
trysail
Catch Me Who Can
- Joined
- Nov 8, 2005
- Posts
- 25,593
17 August, 1862-- Today is the one hundred forty-seventh anniversary of the first day of the Dakota War which, ultimately led to
the largest execution in U.S. history
the expulsion of the Sioux from Minnesota, Little Big Horn and Wounded Knee.
Last edited:
trysail
Catch Me Who Can
- Joined
- Nov 8, 2005
- Posts
- 25,593
پايجامه
Rodomontade
Galactophagist
Ophidiophobia
Feculent
Steatopygous
Pinguid
Sesquipedalian
Precognition
Ratiocination
Oxymoron
Litotes
Concupiscence
Glissade
Misology
Heterodox
Stygian
Stochastic
Soporific
Jactitation
Intromission
Synechdoche
Farrago
Hierophant
Theodicy
Meliorism
Risibility
Acedia
Desuetude
Parricidal
Querencia
Postprandial
Antimacassar
Sardonic
Toff
Fribble
Sentient
Epiphany
Gibbous
Heuristic
Mnemonic
Malingerer
Concomitant
Zaftig
Etiolate
Cathartic
Plethora
Ineffable
Moniker
Pedant
Gerrymander
Montane
Virga
Imprimatur
Femtosecond
Penultimate
Zugzwang
Vexillologist
Catenary
Chiaroscuro
Semiotic
Palindrome
Etymology
Entomology
Teleology
Palimsest
Ephemeral
Factotum
Sanguine
Phlebotomist
Schadenfreude
Epistemology
Algorithm
Segue
Epicene
Cupidity
Threnody
Internecine
Manichean
Lacuna
Nexus
Conundrum
Polymath
Dichotomy
Cacaphony
Champerty
Meretricious
Solecism
Telekinetic
Haruspices
Seneschal
Bibliopole
Necromancy
Nimbus
Bloviate
Plinth
Vicarious
Supine
Feral
Tangential
Triangulate
Nosocomial
Iconoclast
Friable
Caterwaul
Muliebrity
Moeity
Canard
Orrery
Amanuensis
Catenary
Tontine
Pantograph
Cattery
Lethologica
Thixotropic
Logy
Susurrant
Curupira
Sedulous
Bruit
Perseverate
Anthropogenic
Autodidact
Neuromancer
Prolix
Evanescent
Puissant
Ecdysiast
Anthropomorphize
Polyseme
Atlatl
Cicisbeo
Gunsel
Snarge
Enervate
Vitiate
Lycanthrope
Analemma
Orogeny
Koan
Hoodoo
Allosteric
Transhumance
Menhir
Mahgreb
Cagot
Anatopism
Angiogenesis
Lachrymose
Enantiodromia
Oleaginous
Coprolites
Leviratical
Orthography
Unctuous
Ophidiophobia
Furbelow
Portmanteau
Ersatz
Eutactic
Onomatomania
Prognathous
Marcelled
Bandobast
Huscarls
Yclept
Adjuvant
Epistemic
Ontic
Zoonosis
Theodicy
Locupletative
Panchymagogue
Boma
Dodrantal
Ergodic
Benthic
Limn
Sterquilinian
Geophagy
Tenebrae
Glossolalia
Amphictyony
Epithalamium
Caudillo
Tergiversation
Heliacal
Pavane
Gavotte
Vug
Neustonic
Epineuston
Hypotneuston
Bagasse
Djin
شهرزا
Martingale
Hyperacusis
Derhotacization
Isogrammatic
Louche
Ectomorph
Karoshi
Vitrine
Ergodicity
Lorgnette
Graupel
Fulvous
Capybara
Quango
Shabti
Risible
Supernumerary
Rhematic
Snarge
Oleaginous
Prolusion
Prodrome
Hacktivism ( probably slang )
Koan
Fardels
Borborygmi
Gabion
Scriptorium
Agonyclite
Cthonophagia
Rodomontade
Galactophagist
Ophidiophobia
Feculent
Steatopygous
Pinguid
Sesquipedalian
Precognition
Ratiocination
Oxymoron
Litotes
Concupiscence
Glissade
Misology
Heterodox
Stygian
Stochastic
Soporific
Jactitation
Intromission
Synechdoche
Farrago
Hierophant
Theodicy
Meliorism
Risibility
Acedia
Desuetude
Parricidal
Querencia
Postprandial
Antimacassar
Sardonic
Toff
Fribble
Sentient
Epiphany
Gibbous
Heuristic
Mnemonic
Malingerer
Concomitant
Zaftig
Etiolate
Cathartic
Plethora
Ineffable
Moniker
Pedant
Gerrymander
Montane
Virga
Imprimatur
Femtosecond
Penultimate
Zugzwang
Vexillologist
Catenary
Chiaroscuro
Semiotic
Palindrome
Etymology
Entomology
Teleology
Palimsest
Ephemeral
Factotum
Sanguine
Phlebotomist
Schadenfreude
Epistemology
Algorithm
Segue
Epicene
Cupidity
Threnody
Internecine
Manichean
Lacuna
Nexus
Conundrum
Polymath
Dichotomy
Cacaphony
Champerty
Meretricious
Solecism
Telekinetic
Haruspices
Seneschal
Bibliopole
Necromancy
Nimbus
Bloviate
Plinth
Vicarious
Supine
Feral
Tangential
Triangulate
Nosocomial
Iconoclast
Friable
Caterwaul
Muliebrity
Moeity
Canard
Orrery
Amanuensis
Catenary
Tontine
Pantograph
Cattery
Lethologica
Thixotropic
Logy
Susurrant
Curupira
Sedulous
Bruit
Perseverate
Anthropogenic
Autodidact
Neuromancer
Prolix
Evanescent
Puissant
Ecdysiast
Anthropomorphize
Polyseme
Atlatl
Cicisbeo
Gunsel
Snarge
Enervate
Vitiate
Lycanthrope
Analemma
Orogeny
Koan
Hoodoo
Allosteric
Transhumance
Menhir
Mahgreb
Cagot
Anatopism
Angiogenesis
Lachrymose
Enantiodromia
Oleaginous
Coprolites
Leviratical
Orthography
Unctuous
Ophidiophobia
Furbelow
Portmanteau
Ersatz
Eutactic
Onomatomania
Prognathous
Marcelled
Bandobast
Huscarls
Yclept
Adjuvant
Epistemic
Ontic
Zoonosis
Theodicy
Locupletative
Panchymagogue
Boma
Dodrantal
Ergodic
Benthic
Limn
Sterquilinian
Geophagy
Tenebrae
Glossolalia
Amphictyony
Epithalamium
Caudillo
Tergiversation
Heliacal
Pavane
Gavotte
Vug
Neustonic
Epineuston
Hypotneuston
Bagasse
Djin
شهرزا
Martingale
Hyperacusis
Derhotacization
Isogrammatic
Louche
Ectomorph
Karoshi
Vitrine
Ergodicity
Lorgnette
Graupel
Fulvous
Capybara
Quango
Shabti
Risible
Supernumerary
Rhematic
Snarge
Oleaginous
Prolusion
Prodrome
Hacktivism ( probably slang )
Koan
Fardels
Borborygmi
Gabion
Scriptorium
Agonyclite
Cthonophagia
Last edited:
trysail
Catch Me Who Can
- Joined
- Nov 8, 2005
- Posts
- 25,593
Let’s assume that in order to reduce CO2 emissions and prepare for the day when fossil fuels run short, Congress decides to put a price on carbon, and thus coal and natural gas are no longer the lowest-cost ways to generate electricity, as they have been for many decades.
Given that assumption, we believe the public debate about renewable electricity has failed to recognize the following key points:
1.that the public doesn’t want renewable electricity — it wants sustainable, secure, low-impact electricity at the lowest feasible price;
2.that, although there could be six or seven new sources of sustainable carbon-free electricity over the next 10-20 years (hydro, biomass, wind, solar, nuclear, enhanced geothermal, and coal with carbon storage), the only scalable ones that we know how to build today are wind and nuclear;
3.but wind turbines alone cost more than nuclear (on a full-time-equivalent basis);
4.wind requires long new transmission lines which nuclear does not;
5.and, in the absence of electricity storage, there is no such thing as wind by itself — there is only 30% wind combined with 70% natural gas, or 30% wind combined with 70% coal.
6.Moreover, wind is not likely to benefit much from further economies of scale because it’s already a $50 billion global industry.
Consequently, wind is not a cost-effective solution for either CO2 emissions or the fossil-fuel shortage, and subsidizing it today is not likely to lead to cost reductions in the future. Therefore, discriminating against nuclear power (or coal with carbon storage), as 27 states have chosen to do through renewable electricity standards, has to increase the price of electricity.
Electricity Demand and Baseload Sources
Electricity demand typically follows a daily cycle which peaks in the afternoon and declines to a minimum overnight. Wind and nuclear supply what is called baseload demand, or the level that’s present all the time. Based on reports filed by the nation’s utilities with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, about 75% of electricity consumption is baseload and about 25% is intermediate or peak load.
Wind has to be counted as a baseload source because it’s mostly available outside the hours of higher demand. Nuclear power is a baseload source because the plants need to run steady-state.
How Do We Produce Electricity Today?
According the Energy Information Administration (EIA), in 2008, 96% of U.S. electricity came from just four sources: coal 48%, natural gas 22%, nuclear 20% and hydro 6%. The remaining 4% came from biomass (1.4%), wind (1.3%), oil (1.1%) and geothermal (0.4%).
Demand is Full-Time, But Wind is Part-Time; Demand is Local, But Wind is Remote
All previous sources of electricity, except wind, could run full-time. Thus a nuclear plant could substitute for a coal-fired plant, but a wind farm could not, unless it were combined with a backup source or with electricity storage. But due to both its cost and environmental impact, storage has not been proposed for any major wind development.
Likewise, all previous sources of electricity, except for some hydro and some wind, have been located near centers of demand. But given the wind resource map shown above, we can see that any significant wind development will have to take place in remote locations on the Great Plains.
Full-Time Equivalent (FTE) Cost
Unlike electricity generation from fossil fuels, the economics of wind and nuclear are dominated by capital costs. And, for baseload sources, the cost that matters is the full-time-equivalent cost, the one derived by dividing the nameplate cost by the capacity factor (the ratio of actual production to full-time production at nameplate capacity.)
The following table compares three recent estimates for the cost of new nuclear power with recent reports for the cost of wind, natural gas and coal, all in 2007 dollars.
Dollars per Nameplate kilowatt: Combined Cycle Natural Gas $800
Capacity Factor: 0.65
Dollars per Full-Time kilowatt: $1200
Dollars per Nameplate kilowatt: Supercritical Coal $2200
Capacity Factor: 0.85
Dollars per Full-Time kilowatt: $2600
Dollars per Nameplate kilowatt: Nuclear Black &Veatch 10/07 $3200
Capacity Factor: 0.9
Dollars per Full-Time kilowatt: $3600
Dollars per Nameplate kilowatt: Nuclear South Carolina Electric & Gas 5/08 $3400
Capacity Factor: 0.9
Dollars per Full-Time kilowatt: $3800
Dollars per Nameplate kilowatt: Nuclear Electricite de France 12/08 $3500
Capacity Factor: 0.9
Dollars per Full-Time kilowatt: $3900
Dollars per Nameplate kilowatt: Wind Class 3 Black & Veatch 10/07 $1650
Capacity Factor: 0.35
Dollars per Full-Time kilowatt: $4700
Dollars per Nameplate kilowatt: Wind Am Wind Energy Assoc / EIA 2008 $2000
Capacity Factor: 0.3
Dollars per Full-Time kilowatt: $6700
Dollars per Nameplate kilowatt: Wind + 550 miles Am Electric Power $3000
Capacity Factor: 0.3
Dollars per Full-Time kilowatt: $10,000
Dollars per Nameplate kilowatt: Wind + 1000 miles $4000?
Capacity Factor: 0.3
Dollars per Full-Time kilowatt: $13,000?
Description
The first three nameplate costs and the first nameplate cost for wind are from a study by Black & Veatch, commissioned by the American Wind Energy Association (AWEA) in 2007. The remaining nameplate costs for nuclear are from Electricite de France (EdF) and South Carolina Electric and Gas (SCE&G), and for wind are from data reported by AWEA.
All of the capacity factors are from Black & Veatch, except the one for wind, which was calculated from data reported by AWEA and EIA.
EdF’s and SCE&G’s cost estimates are from actual projects – Electricite de France’s most recent press release on the European Pressurized Reactor under construction in Flamanville, France; and South Carolina Electric and Gas’s engineering, procurement and construction contract for a reactor which it anticipates completing in 2016.
The costs of inflation, financing and transmission are not included, except for the rows labeled “Wind + 550 miles” and “Wind + 1000 miles.”
See the appendix for more information on sources and calculations.
Observations
The first observation is that wind’s cost and capacity factor are open to dispute, and seemingly modest differences in the assumptions can lead to large differences in the FTE cost. While the nameplate cost increase from 2006 (the date of B&V’s data) to 2008 is probably not in dispute, the capacity factor for future projects is. All we’re pointing out is what wind turbines actually delivered in 2008.
A second observation is that, on an FTE basis, the cost of wind turbines alone is higher than the current and projected cost of nuclear, even if we added finance costs to nuclear or assumed a higher capacity factor for wind. At the very least, one would have to say that on the basis of generation cost alone, wind has no obvious advantage.
The third point to note is cost of transmission. Even 550 miles of transmission (which is a conservative estimate for the distance from windy sites on the Great Plains back to major centers of demand) would raise wind’s cost by 50%. 1000 miles of transmission would most likely double it. [High-voltage DC could perhaps reduce costs somewhat at the 1000-mile level. More on that in another post.]
Reliable estimates for new long-distance transmission are difficult to find because the most advanced technologies have not been implemented on large scale in the U.S. We picked the 550-mile data point to use here because it comes from one of the few large-capacity transmission proposals which is based on real experience, American Electric Power’s proposal for a 765-kilovolt AC connection from West Virginia to New Jersey.
Caveat
Of course, the difficulty in making these comparisons is that no nuclear plants have been built from scratch in the United States for 25 years and the small amount of wind power installed to date has piggy-backed on the existing grid. Thus for nuclear we can draw conclusions only from experience in Europe or from early-stage contracts signed by U.S. utilities, and for wind we can draw conclusions only by reviewing proposals for new transmission projects.
But while these limitations should remind us to be cautious, they should not prevent us from making comparisons, because European nuclear regulations and labor rates are similar to those in the United States, and the proposed transmission lines are evolutionary extensions of what we have today.
Wind’s Capacity Factor
Although some studies have claimed onshore capacity factors of 40% or higher, production figures for 2008 from the EIA and AWEA show that the overall capacity factor for actual installations was 31%. This was not a result of old technology. Almost all U.S. capacity has been installed since 2001 and the majority has been installed since 2005.
According to the EIA, 2008 wind generation equaled 52 billion kilowatt-hours.
See table Net Generation by Other Renewables: Total (All Sectors)
eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/epm/table1_1_a.html
According to the AWEA 2008 Annual Wind Industry Report:
http://awea.org/publications/reports/AWEA-Annual-Wind-Report-2009.pdf
8500 MW of wind capacity was installed in the United States in 2008 at a cost of $17 billion. Total U.S. wind capacity was 17GW at the end of 2007, 21GW at the end of Q3 2008 and 25.3GW at the end of 2008. From that, we can deduce that the average installed capacity in 2008 was about 19GW.
Calculation: 52 billion kWh / (8760 hours * 19 GW) = 31%
Why Is Wind So Expensive?
Because wind is intermittent and the best sites are remote. Remoteness and intermittency add three costs which no other sources of electricity have ever had: transmission, storage and backup.
Transmission
Contrary to popular belief, we have almost never transmitted power over long distances. Our existing grid is primarily a local distribution network, not a transmission network. And for good reason — transmission is expensive, and rights of ways are difficult to assemble. In addition, the more tightly a system is connected, the larger the area that can go down in a major disruption. Distributed generation is robust generation.
We have typically produced electricity within 100 miles of where it was consumed. Therefore, if we had to build a national transmission grid, its cost should be counted against the technologies which require it (wind, solar and perhaps enhanced geothermal)
In contrast, nuclear plants can replace coal or natural gas-fired plants one for one, in nearby locations. Thus the existing distribution grid can be re-used largely as it is.
Storage
Although we won’t examine electricity storage in detail here, the simple takeaway is that only one technology (pumped hydro) has ever been built at even modest scale, and environmental considerations would make it exceedingly difficult to build more. Not to mention that suitable sites in the Appalachians are nowhere near the most desirable wind sites on the Great Plains. Thus two different transmission systems would have to be built – one from the source to the storage facility and another from the storage facility to the load.
The only other technology which could scale to match the requirement is compressed air energy storage (CAES.) Unfortunately, while CAES might make sense at small scale, it has a fundamental drawback at large scale – its heavy dependence on natural gas. CAES plus wind would consume about 60% as much natural gas as the most efficient combined cycle gas turbine alone. But since CCGT could operate without any wind turbines, compressed-air caverns or new transmission lines at all, why build them?
Backup
There is no such thing as wind power by itself. There is only 30% wind combined with 70% backup, and the only feasible choices for backup are hydro, biomass, natural gas or coal. (Nuclear can’t be a backup because it can’t ramp easily.) But hydro supplies only 6% of our electricity today (almost none of which is near the Great Plains) and can’t be expanded, while biomass supplies only 1.3% of our electricity today and will be costly to increase. Natural gas and coal were the fossil fuels that we set out to eliminate in the first place.
What’s the point of pursuing a technology that would lock us into 70% natural gas or 70% coal?
Conclusion
Power companies have never built remote, intermittent sources before because those sources didn’t make economic sense.
And if we had any other choices for the future, remote intermittent sources wouldn’t make economic sense today, either. We do have other choices. Nuclear is a proven, scalable full-time source today, and enhanced geothermal or coal with carbon storage may be one tomorrow.
———————————————————————————————
Why is the List of Scalable New Sources So Short?
Because both our population and our per capita consumption are so large relative to the size of the continent.
The only non-fossil sources which could plausibly join wind and nuclear include two which we use today — hydro and biomass — and three which are under development – thermal solar, enhanced geothermal (EGS), and coal with carbon capture and storage (CCS). But all five of those are either limited in capacity or face long research and development cycles.
[Three additional sources are not plausible. Natural geothermal sources have mostly been developed. Photovoltaic solar is much more expensive than its thermal solar cousin. And nuclear fusion is too far off in the future to evaluate.]
Hydro has been low cost, but no one believes that we could build much more.
Biomass-fired generation could be expanded, but nowhere close to the size of U.S. electricity demand and not at low cost (or low environmental impact (the soil loses nutrients.) Think of biomass as a low-quality form of coal, widely dispersed, and sitting outside where it collects moisture.
Thermal solar has promise, but will face capacity factors of 20% or less outside the Southwest.
Enhanced (deep-drilled) geothermal is years away from feasibility and its costs have yet to be determined.
CCS coal could serve as a transition strategy, but the quantities of CO2 involved are so large that it may never be cost-effective to capture and store it, except in (relatively small) applications for enhanced oil recovery. A one-gigawatt coal plant produces about 10 million tons of CO2 and 250,000 tons of ash per year, while the same size nuclear plant produces 20 tons of spent fuel and no ash or CO2. Factors of 500,000 have consequences.
———————————————————————————————=
Sources for the Table of FTE Capital Costs:
Black and Veatch,
20% Wind Energy Penetration in the United States, October 2007,
a study commissioned by the American Wind Energy Association (AWEA).
www.20percentwind.org/Black_Veatch_20_Percent_Report.pdf
Electricite de France, December 4, 2008. Press release announcing that the cost of the 1.6 gigawatt Flamanville-3 European Pressurized Reactor, scheduled for completion in 2012, had risen to 4 billion euros, or 2500 euros per gigawatt (3500 dollars per gigawatt at an exchange rate of 1.4 to 1)
http://weblog.greenpeace.org/nuclea...day-nuclear-strategy-and-finance-04-12-08.pdf
South Carolina Electric and Gas Co., April 2009.
SCE&G Generation Strategy by Kevin Marsh, CEO.
Available on SCANA Corp. investor relations page:
http://www.scana.com/en/investor-relations/nuclear-financial-information/default.htm
American Wind Energy Association, 2008 Annual Wind Industry Report
http://awea.org/publications/reports/AWEA-Annual-Wind-Report-2009.pdf
Transmission cost:
American Electric Power, “Meeting America’s Future Electric Needs”, 2006
http://www.aep.com/about/i765project/technicalpapers.aspx
Several papers on this page refer to the following paper, for which there is no link:
“The AEP Interstate Project Proposal – A 765 kV Transmission Line from West Virginia to New Jersey,” January 31, 2006.
Calculation: Assume N-1 contingency — must build 3 lines in order to have 2 in operation after an outage.
Capacity: 2 lines * 5000 MW maximum load per line = 10GW.
Assume capacity is limited by power factor support facilities and line losses rather than by heating.
Cost: 3 lines * $3 billion per line = $9 billion.
Result: $1 billion per gigawatt for 550 miles.
Notes for the Table of FTE Capital Costs:
One could argue that inflation would affect all sources similarly, or nuclear might have an advantage because it uses 1/10th as much steel per FTE-watt as wind.
Financing costs favor wind because of its shorter construction time. SCE&G’s capital spending timeline indicates an average borrowing period of about 3 years, compared with 1 year or less for wind.
Transmission costs favor nuclear.
SCE&G’s estimate excludes inflation (estimated at a time-weighted average of 30%), financing and transmission (estimated at 10% of plant cost), but includes owner’s costs (such as site preparation) and a 10% contingency factor.
All capacity factors represent maximum values. When facilities are used to meet intermediate and peak loads, utilities will by necessity run them for fewer hours than their maximum capacity.
———————————————————————————————-
Dis-economies Of Scale
Unlike most industrial technologies, wind has dis-economies of scale. That is, as more wind is added to a system, the cost per kilowatt-hour goes up. Small amounts of wind, such as we have built to date, can piggyback on existing infrastructure. But as more wind is added, new transmission lines must be built. Once wind scales up to match peak demand, storage must be built. In all cases, wind must be paired with a backup source whose capital costs must be paid for by ratepayers.
Competing full-time sources, on the other hand, do not require long-distance transmission, storage or backup.
———————————————————————————————
Cost of Fuel
While wind’s fuel is free, that’s not much of an advantage. Nuclear fuel costs about one half cent per kilowatt-hour, out of a total wholesale price of five to six cents per kilowatt-hour, in most parts of the country.
See post and more at http://www.palmettoenergy.org/
Given that assumption, we believe the public debate about renewable electricity has failed to recognize the following key points:
1.that the public doesn’t want renewable electricity — it wants sustainable, secure, low-impact electricity at the lowest feasible price;
2.that, although there could be six or seven new sources of sustainable carbon-free electricity over the next 10-20 years (hydro, biomass, wind, solar, nuclear, enhanced geothermal, and coal with carbon storage), the only scalable ones that we know how to build today are wind and nuclear;
3.but wind turbines alone cost more than nuclear (on a full-time-equivalent basis);
4.wind requires long new transmission lines which nuclear does not;
5.and, in the absence of electricity storage, there is no such thing as wind by itself — there is only 30% wind combined with 70% natural gas, or 30% wind combined with 70% coal.
6.Moreover, wind is not likely to benefit much from further economies of scale because it’s already a $50 billion global industry.
Consequently, wind is not a cost-effective solution for either CO2 emissions or the fossil-fuel shortage, and subsidizing it today is not likely to lead to cost reductions in the future. Therefore, discriminating against nuclear power (or coal with carbon storage), as 27 states have chosen to do through renewable electricity standards, has to increase the price of electricity.
Electricity Demand and Baseload Sources
Electricity demand typically follows a daily cycle which peaks in the afternoon and declines to a minimum overnight. Wind and nuclear supply what is called baseload demand, or the level that’s present all the time. Based on reports filed by the nation’s utilities with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, about 75% of electricity consumption is baseload and about 25% is intermediate or peak load.
Wind has to be counted as a baseload source because it’s mostly available outside the hours of higher demand. Nuclear power is a baseload source because the plants need to run steady-state.
How Do We Produce Electricity Today?
According the Energy Information Administration (EIA), in 2008, 96% of U.S. electricity came from just four sources: coal 48%, natural gas 22%, nuclear 20% and hydro 6%. The remaining 4% came from biomass (1.4%), wind (1.3%), oil (1.1%) and geothermal (0.4%).
Demand is Full-Time, But Wind is Part-Time; Demand is Local, But Wind is Remote
All previous sources of electricity, except wind, could run full-time. Thus a nuclear plant could substitute for a coal-fired plant, but a wind farm could not, unless it were combined with a backup source or with electricity storage. But due to both its cost and environmental impact, storage has not been proposed for any major wind development.
Likewise, all previous sources of electricity, except for some hydro and some wind, have been located near centers of demand. But given the wind resource map shown above, we can see that any significant wind development will have to take place in remote locations on the Great Plains.
Full-Time Equivalent (FTE) Cost
Unlike electricity generation from fossil fuels, the economics of wind and nuclear are dominated by capital costs. And, for baseload sources, the cost that matters is the full-time-equivalent cost, the one derived by dividing the nameplate cost by the capacity factor (the ratio of actual production to full-time production at nameplate capacity.)
The following table compares three recent estimates for the cost of new nuclear power with recent reports for the cost of wind, natural gas and coal, all in 2007 dollars.
Dollars per Nameplate kilowatt: Combined Cycle Natural Gas $800
Capacity Factor: 0.65
Dollars per Full-Time kilowatt: $1200
Dollars per Nameplate kilowatt: Supercritical Coal $2200
Capacity Factor: 0.85
Dollars per Full-Time kilowatt: $2600
Dollars per Nameplate kilowatt: Nuclear Black &Veatch 10/07 $3200
Capacity Factor: 0.9
Dollars per Full-Time kilowatt: $3600
Dollars per Nameplate kilowatt: Nuclear South Carolina Electric & Gas 5/08 $3400
Capacity Factor: 0.9
Dollars per Full-Time kilowatt: $3800
Dollars per Nameplate kilowatt: Nuclear Electricite de France 12/08 $3500
Capacity Factor: 0.9
Dollars per Full-Time kilowatt: $3900
Dollars per Nameplate kilowatt: Wind Class 3 Black & Veatch 10/07 $1650
Capacity Factor: 0.35
Dollars per Full-Time kilowatt: $4700
Dollars per Nameplate kilowatt: Wind Am Wind Energy Assoc / EIA 2008 $2000
Capacity Factor: 0.3
Dollars per Full-Time kilowatt: $6700
Dollars per Nameplate kilowatt: Wind + 550 miles Am Electric Power $3000
Capacity Factor: 0.3
Dollars per Full-Time kilowatt: $10,000
Dollars per Nameplate kilowatt: Wind + 1000 miles $4000?
Capacity Factor: 0.3
Dollars per Full-Time kilowatt: $13,000?
Description
The first three nameplate costs and the first nameplate cost for wind are from a study by Black & Veatch, commissioned by the American Wind Energy Association (AWEA) in 2007. The remaining nameplate costs for nuclear are from Electricite de France (EdF) and South Carolina Electric and Gas (SCE&G), and for wind are from data reported by AWEA.
All of the capacity factors are from Black & Veatch, except the one for wind, which was calculated from data reported by AWEA and EIA.
EdF’s and SCE&G’s cost estimates are from actual projects – Electricite de France’s most recent press release on the European Pressurized Reactor under construction in Flamanville, France; and South Carolina Electric and Gas’s engineering, procurement and construction contract for a reactor which it anticipates completing in 2016.
The costs of inflation, financing and transmission are not included, except for the rows labeled “Wind + 550 miles” and “Wind + 1000 miles.”
See the appendix for more information on sources and calculations.
Observations
The first observation is that wind’s cost and capacity factor are open to dispute, and seemingly modest differences in the assumptions can lead to large differences in the FTE cost. While the nameplate cost increase from 2006 (the date of B&V’s data) to 2008 is probably not in dispute, the capacity factor for future projects is. All we’re pointing out is what wind turbines actually delivered in 2008.
A second observation is that, on an FTE basis, the cost of wind turbines alone is higher than the current and projected cost of nuclear, even if we added finance costs to nuclear or assumed a higher capacity factor for wind. At the very least, one would have to say that on the basis of generation cost alone, wind has no obvious advantage.
The third point to note is cost of transmission. Even 550 miles of transmission (which is a conservative estimate for the distance from windy sites on the Great Plains back to major centers of demand) would raise wind’s cost by 50%. 1000 miles of transmission would most likely double it. [High-voltage DC could perhaps reduce costs somewhat at the 1000-mile level. More on that in another post.]
Reliable estimates for new long-distance transmission are difficult to find because the most advanced technologies have not been implemented on large scale in the U.S. We picked the 550-mile data point to use here because it comes from one of the few large-capacity transmission proposals which is based on real experience, American Electric Power’s proposal for a 765-kilovolt AC connection from West Virginia to New Jersey.
Caveat
Of course, the difficulty in making these comparisons is that no nuclear plants have been built from scratch in the United States for 25 years and the small amount of wind power installed to date has piggy-backed on the existing grid. Thus for nuclear we can draw conclusions only from experience in Europe or from early-stage contracts signed by U.S. utilities, and for wind we can draw conclusions only by reviewing proposals for new transmission projects.
But while these limitations should remind us to be cautious, they should not prevent us from making comparisons, because European nuclear regulations and labor rates are similar to those in the United States, and the proposed transmission lines are evolutionary extensions of what we have today.
Wind’s Capacity Factor
Although some studies have claimed onshore capacity factors of 40% or higher, production figures for 2008 from the EIA and AWEA show that the overall capacity factor for actual installations was 31%. This was not a result of old technology. Almost all U.S. capacity has been installed since 2001 and the majority has been installed since 2005.
According to the EIA, 2008 wind generation equaled 52 billion kilowatt-hours.
See table Net Generation by Other Renewables: Total (All Sectors)
eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/epm/table1_1_a.html
According to the AWEA 2008 Annual Wind Industry Report:
http://awea.org/publications/reports/AWEA-Annual-Wind-Report-2009.pdf
8500 MW of wind capacity was installed in the United States in 2008 at a cost of $17 billion. Total U.S. wind capacity was 17GW at the end of 2007, 21GW at the end of Q3 2008 and 25.3GW at the end of 2008. From that, we can deduce that the average installed capacity in 2008 was about 19GW.
Calculation: 52 billion kWh / (8760 hours * 19 GW) = 31%
Why Is Wind So Expensive?
Because wind is intermittent and the best sites are remote. Remoteness and intermittency add three costs which no other sources of electricity have ever had: transmission, storage and backup.
Transmission
Contrary to popular belief, we have almost never transmitted power over long distances. Our existing grid is primarily a local distribution network, not a transmission network. And for good reason — transmission is expensive, and rights of ways are difficult to assemble. In addition, the more tightly a system is connected, the larger the area that can go down in a major disruption. Distributed generation is robust generation.
We have typically produced electricity within 100 miles of where it was consumed. Therefore, if we had to build a national transmission grid, its cost should be counted against the technologies which require it (wind, solar and perhaps enhanced geothermal)
In contrast, nuclear plants can replace coal or natural gas-fired plants one for one, in nearby locations. Thus the existing distribution grid can be re-used largely as it is.
Storage
Although we won’t examine electricity storage in detail here, the simple takeaway is that only one technology (pumped hydro) has ever been built at even modest scale, and environmental considerations would make it exceedingly difficult to build more. Not to mention that suitable sites in the Appalachians are nowhere near the most desirable wind sites on the Great Plains. Thus two different transmission systems would have to be built – one from the source to the storage facility and another from the storage facility to the load.
The only other technology which could scale to match the requirement is compressed air energy storage (CAES.) Unfortunately, while CAES might make sense at small scale, it has a fundamental drawback at large scale – its heavy dependence on natural gas. CAES plus wind would consume about 60% as much natural gas as the most efficient combined cycle gas turbine alone. But since CCGT could operate without any wind turbines, compressed-air caverns or new transmission lines at all, why build them?
Backup
There is no such thing as wind power by itself. There is only 30% wind combined with 70% backup, and the only feasible choices for backup are hydro, biomass, natural gas or coal. (Nuclear can’t be a backup because it can’t ramp easily.) But hydro supplies only 6% of our electricity today (almost none of which is near the Great Plains) and can’t be expanded, while biomass supplies only 1.3% of our electricity today and will be costly to increase. Natural gas and coal were the fossil fuels that we set out to eliminate in the first place.
What’s the point of pursuing a technology that would lock us into 70% natural gas or 70% coal?
Conclusion
Power companies have never built remote, intermittent sources before because those sources didn’t make economic sense.
And if we had any other choices for the future, remote intermittent sources wouldn’t make economic sense today, either. We do have other choices. Nuclear is a proven, scalable full-time source today, and enhanced geothermal or coal with carbon storage may be one tomorrow.
———————————————————————————————
Why is the List of Scalable New Sources So Short?
Because both our population and our per capita consumption are so large relative to the size of the continent.
The only non-fossil sources which could plausibly join wind and nuclear include two which we use today — hydro and biomass — and three which are under development – thermal solar, enhanced geothermal (EGS), and coal with carbon capture and storage (CCS). But all five of those are either limited in capacity or face long research and development cycles.
[Three additional sources are not plausible. Natural geothermal sources have mostly been developed. Photovoltaic solar is much more expensive than its thermal solar cousin. And nuclear fusion is too far off in the future to evaluate.]
Hydro has been low cost, but no one believes that we could build much more.
Biomass-fired generation could be expanded, but nowhere close to the size of U.S. electricity demand and not at low cost (or low environmental impact (the soil loses nutrients.) Think of biomass as a low-quality form of coal, widely dispersed, and sitting outside where it collects moisture.
Thermal solar has promise, but will face capacity factors of 20% or less outside the Southwest.
Enhanced (deep-drilled) geothermal is years away from feasibility and its costs have yet to be determined.
CCS coal could serve as a transition strategy, but the quantities of CO2 involved are so large that it may never be cost-effective to capture and store it, except in (relatively small) applications for enhanced oil recovery. A one-gigawatt coal plant produces about 10 million tons of CO2 and 250,000 tons of ash per year, while the same size nuclear plant produces 20 tons of spent fuel and no ash or CO2. Factors of 500,000 have consequences.
———————————————————————————————=
Sources for the Table of FTE Capital Costs:
Black and Veatch,
20% Wind Energy Penetration in the United States, October 2007,
a study commissioned by the American Wind Energy Association (AWEA).
www.20percentwind.org/Black_Veatch_20_Percent_Report.pdf
Electricite de France, December 4, 2008. Press release announcing that the cost of the 1.6 gigawatt Flamanville-3 European Pressurized Reactor, scheduled for completion in 2012, had risen to 4 billion euros, or 2500 euros per gigawatt (3500 dollars per gigawatt at an exchange rate of 1.4 to 1)
http://weblog.greenpeace.org/nuclea...day-nuclear-strategy-and-finance-04-12-08.pdf
South Carolina Electric and Gas Co., April 2009.
SCE&G Generation Strategy by Kevin Marsh, CEO.
Available on SCANA Corp. investor relations page:
http://www.scana.com/en/investor-relations/nuclear-financial-information/default.htm
American Wind Energy Association, 2008 Annual Wind Industry Report
http://awea.org/publications/reports/AWEA-Annual-Wind-Report-2009.pdf
Transmission cost:
American Electric Power, “Meeting America’s Future Electric Needs”, 2006
http://www.aep.com/about/i765project/technicalpapers.aspx
Several papers on this page refer to the following paper, for which there is no link:
“The AEP Interstate Project Proposal – A 765 kV Transmission Line from West Virginia to New Jersey,” January 31, 2006.
Calculation: Assume N-1 contingency — must build 3 lines in order to have 2 in operation after an outage.
Capacity: 2 lines * 5000 MW maximum load per line = 10GW.
Assume capacity is limited by power factor support facilities and line losses rather than by heating.
Cost: 3 lines * $3 billion per line = $9 billion.
Result: $1 billion per gigawatt for 550 miles.
Notes for the Table of FTE Capital Costs:
One could argue that inflation would affect all sources similarly, or nuclear might have an advantage because it uses 1/10th as much steel per FTE-watt as wind.
Financing costs favor wind because of its shorter construction time. SCE&G’s capital spending timeline indicates an average borrowing period of about 3 years, compared with 1 year or less for wind.
Transmission costs favor nuclear.
SCE&G’s estimate excludes inflation (estimated at a time-weighted average of 30%), financing and transmission (estimated at 10% of plant cost), but includes owner’s costs (such as site preparation) and a 10% contingency factor.
All capacity factors represent maximum values. When facilities are used to meet intermediate and peak loads, utilities will by necessity run them for fewer hours than their maximum capacity.
———————————————————————————————-
Dis-economies Of Scale
Unlike most industrial technologies, wind has dis-economies of scale. That is, as more wind is added to a system, the cost per kilowatt-hour goes up. Small amounts of wind, such as we have built to date, can piggyback on existing infrastructure. But as more wind is added, new transmission lines must be built. Once wind scales up to match peak demand, storage must be built. In all cases, wind must be paired with a backup source whose capital costs must be paid for by ratepayers.
Competing full-time sources, on the other hand, do not require long-distance transmission, storage or backup.
———————————————————————————————
Cost of Fuel
While wind’s fuel is free, that’s not much of an advantage. Nuclear fuel costs about one half cent per kilowatt-hour, out of a total wholesale price of five to six cents per kilowatt-hour, in most parts of the country.
See post and more at http://www.palmettoenergy.org/
Last edited:
trysail
Catch Me Who Can
- Joined
- Nov 8, 2005
- Posts
- 25,593
Premiere: 18 October
http://www.noteviljustwrong.com/patrick-moore
"NOT EVIL, JUST WRONG"
http://www.noteviljustwrong.com/film
trysail
Catch Me Who Can
- Joined
- Nov 8, 2005
- Posts
- 25,593
(1)
Old Uncle
Old Uncle
Old Uncle
Old Uncle
(2)
Old Uncle
Old Uncle
Old Uncle
Old Uncle
(3)
Old Uncle
Old Uncle
Old Uncle
Old Uncle
(4)
Old Uncle
Old Uncle
Old Uncle
Old Uncle
(5)
Old Uncle
Old Uncle
Old Uncle
Old Uncle
(6)
Old Uncle
Old Uncle
Old Uncle
Old Uncle
(7)
Old Uncle
Old Uncle
Old Uncle
Old Uncle
(8)
Old Uncle
Old Uncle
Old Uncle
Old Uncle
(9)
Old Uncle
Old Uncle
Old Uncle
Old Uncle
(10)
Old Uncle
Old Uncle
Old Uncle
Old Uncle
(11)
Old Uncle
Old Uncle
Old Uncle
Old Uncle
(12)
Old Uncle
Old Uncle
Old Uncle
Old Uncle
(13)
Old Uncle
Old Uncle
Old Uncle
Old Uncle
(14)
Old Uncle
Old Uncle
Old Uncle
Old Uncle
(15)
Old Uncle
Old Uncle
Old Uncle
Old Uncle
(16)
Old Uncle
Old Uncle
Old Uncle
Old Uncle
(17)
Old Uncle
Old Uncle
Old Uncle
Old Uncle
(18)
Old Uncle
Old Uncle
Old Uncle
Old Uncle
(19)
Old Uncle
Old Uncle
Old Uncle
Old Uncle
(20)
Old Uncle
Old Uncle
Old Uncle
Old Uncle
(21)
Old Uncle
Old Uncle
Old Uncle
Old Uncle
(22)
Old Uncle
Old Uncle
Old Uncle
Old Uncle
(23)
Old Uncle
Old Uncle
Old Uncle
Old Uncle
(24)
Old Uncle
Old Uncle
Old Uncle
Old Uncle
(25)
Old Uncle
Old Uncle
Old Uncle
Old Uncle
(26)
Old Uncle
Old Uncle
Old Uncle
Old Uncle
(27)
Old Uncle
Old Uncle
Old Uncle
Old Uncle
(28)
Old Uncle
Old Uncle
Old Uncle
Old Uncle
(29)
Old Uncle
Old Uncle
Old Uncle
Old Uncle
(30)
Old Uncle
Old Uncle
Old Uncle
Old Uncle
(31)
Old Uncle
Old Uncle
Old Uncle
Old Uncle
(32)
Old Uncle
Old Uncle
Old Uncle
Old Uncle
trysail
Catch Me Who Can
- Joined
- Nov 8, 2005
- Posts
- 25,593
Amateur Diggers Earn £541,000 for Viking Treasure Find
Aug. 27-- Two amateur diggers in northern England have together pocketed 541,000 pounds ($878,000) for finding the most important Viking treasure of its kind in 150 years, soon to go on show at the British Museum.
Metal-detector users David and Andrew Whelan discovered the hoard in January 2007, in Harrogate, Yorkshire, and handed it to the local representative of a national program that registers archeological finds. The treasure was valued at 1.08 million pounds, and has now been bought for the nation, with proceeds split evenly between the finders and the landowner.
“The contents of the hoard we found went far beyond our wildest dreams,” the Whelans said in a press release.
The treasure consists of 67 precious-metal objects including bracelets, ornaments, and ingots; 617 coins -- and a gilt silver vessel that contained most of the smaller objects. It was made in present-day France or Germany in the mid-9th century, and seems to have been intended for church services, according to the statement.
Highlights of the treasure will be shown at the two institutions that now own it: the Yorkshire Museum in York (Sept. 17 - Nov. 1) and the British Museum.
Most of the money came in grants from the National Heritage Memorial Fund and the Art Fund, according to the statement.
The Portable Antiquities Scheme, as the nationwide archeological program is known, has recorded some 360,000 finds, most of them by metal-detector users, and the rest by people who made chance discoveries as they walked, gardened, ploughed or did everyday work.
The finds must be reported if they are “treasure” -- gold and silver pieces that are more than 300 years old, and groups of coins. Both the finder and the landowner are rewarded as an incentive for them to report. Otherwise the objects risk being sold on the black market, depriving museums of important gems.
Aug. 27-- Two amateur diggers in northern England have together pocketed 541,000 pounds ($878,000) for finding the most important Viking treasure of its kind in 150 years, soon to go on show at the British Museum.
Metal-detector users David and Andrew Whelan discovered the hoard in January 2007, in Harrogate, Yorkshire, and handed it to the local representative of a national program that registers archeological finds. The treasure was valued at 1.08 million pounds, and has now been bought for the nation, with proceeds split evenly between the finders and the landowner.
“The contents of the hoard we found went far beyond our wildest dreams,” the Whelans said in a press release.
The treasure consists of 67 precious-metal objects including bracelets, ornaments, and ingots; 617 coins -- and a gilt silver vessel that contained most of the smaller objects. It was made in present-day France or Germany in the mid-9th century, and seems to have been intended for church services, according to the statement.
Highlights of the treasure will be shown at the two institutions that now own it: the Yorkshire Museum in York (Sept. 17 - Nov. 1) and the British Museum.
Most of the money came in grants from the National Heritage Memorial Fund and the Art Fund, according to the statement.
The Portable Antiquities Scheme, as the nationwide archeological program is known, has recorded some 360,000 finds, most of them by metal-detector users, and the rest by people who made chance discoveries as they walked, gardened, ploughed or did everyday work.
The finds must be reported if they are “treasure” -- gold and silver pieces that are more than 300 years old, and groups of coins. Both the finder and the landowner are rewarded as an incentive for them to report. Otherwise the objects risk being sold on the black market, depriving museums of important gems.
