There’s a wonderful article in the current issue of Insight, the energy journal published by Platts, called “The Unbearable Lightness of Wind.”

  The author, Ross McCracken, tackles the question that nobody has posed yet – what are the economic consequences going to be of putting up all these wind turbines with government subsidies, mandates and “feed-in tariffs” that tell the utilities, “Buy it whatever it costs”?

“The conundrum,” McCracken writes, “lies in the fact that wind does not directly displace fossil fuel generating capacity, but will make this capacity less profitable to maintain.”

What’s likely to happen, McCracken argues, is that windmills – which generate electricity only 30 percent of the time – will replace some peaking power and some base-load power:

As wind provides neither baseload nor peaking plant it has no impact on reserve capacity. . . [I]t increases redundancy in peaking plants and reduces the profits of baseload generation; potentially good for consumers but bad for investment in non-intermittent sources of power, and presenting the risk of a decline in reserve capacity. . . . [P]eaking plants would be used much less and baseload plant would see sustained period of potential below cost prices – a particular nightmare for the nuclear industry.

So without contributing any reliable capacity, wind will nonetheless make nuclear, by far our most practical and reliable form of zero carbon energy, less profitable. Existing plants will be caught in a trap and new construction will be discouraged entirely. Already the British Nuclear Group is complaining that it can’t build any new reactors if they have to compete against subsidized wind farms. Anti-nuclear activists are turning handsprings, claiming joyously that wind is finally replacing nuclear. But that’s not what’s happening. Instead, nothing will be replacing existing capacity–namely, the coal burning plants that are one of the largest sources of carbon emissions–as demand increases in years ahead. That means carbon emissions won’t be meaningfully reduced, since coal plants will have to stay on line to provide backup.

Njoy …

When I was kid, this question had always puzzled me … why why why clock hands always show 10 10 ( almost )  …. or in cases with seconds hand , they all position at 10 9 6 …  ???

No wonder, i was not the only genius to note this positions … so just like me , many people had already tried to figure out what’s the reason …

There are many Myths laying around this 10 10 mystery …

• First and most common , ( for Western countries of course ) America’s first president Abraham Lincoln was shot / died at that time , but fact is , he was shot at 10.15 PM , and died next morning at 7.22 … so its not true .. right ??
• Second and Third Myth was same , but for John F. Kennedy and Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. … that they died at this time … which isn’t true ..
• Fourth and popular in asian countries … is … it is time when America dumped their first nuclear bomb, “ Little Boy “ on Hiroshima, Japan …
• Fifth and silly reason is , it displays name of manufacture without interrupting clock hands …

But the fact is … the only reason why this hands are placed in this manner is , the official statement is something like this …

Timex says -- The hands on a clock are placed at10:10 because it’s a creative standard industry. The hands on timepieces are placed at 10:10 so that the company’s logo on the face gets framed and not blocked by the hands. The industry standard used to be 8:20 but that looked too much like a frown and created an unhappy look.
In its ads' , the clock hands are placed at 10:09:36, exactly below 12 o’ clock .

The practice started in the 1920s, and its stuck since then.

Darn … finally mystery solved … its nothing but just a marketing analogy ??? no fancy reason … too bad …

anyways … this is the story why clock hands are at 10 10 …

Njoy …

It's 2009 -- several decades after health officials began urging Americans to cut down on salt.

Do you know how much you're consuming?

If you're a typical American, it's about 3,400 milligrams of sodium per day. That's well beyond the 2,300 mg recommended by the U.S. Dietary Guidelines. And it's 15 times as much as the human body requires.

Average sodium intake has increased about 50% since the 1970s. That's largely because we're eating more convenience foods. And, as makers of processed food have cut fat and sugar from their products, they've often added more salt to restore flavor.

How bad is all this sodium for your health?

Excess salt has been linked to osteoporosis, kidney damage and stomach cancer. Worse, it raises blood pressure, a key factor in heart attacks and strokes, which kill about 850,000 Americans a year.

"After smoking, high blood pressure is the leading cause of preventable illness and death," says New York City Health Commissioner Thomas Frieden, who is urging makers of packaged foods and restaurants nationwide to gradually reduce their sodium content by 50% over the next 10 years. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimates that such a reduction could save 150,000 lives and $10 billion in health-care expenditures a year. Some 50 million Americans have hypertension (that is, blood pressure readings consistently at or above 140/90 mm/Hg). Another 20 million are prehypertensive (with blood pressure from 120/80 to 139/ 89 mm/Hg). Hypertension is more common among African-Americans than whites, and nearly 90% of Americans eventually develop it as they age.

With that in mind, the CDC is urging anyone who has hypertension, is African-American or over age 40 -- nearly 70% of the U.S. population -- to follow a stricter guideline of just 1,500 mgs a day. Even people with normal blood pressure can cut their risk of developing hypertension later by lowering their salt intake. "We think of hypertension as being a normal part of the aging process and it's not," says Commissioner Frieden.

About 80% of Americans' salt intake comes from processed foods and restaurant meals; only 20% comes from salt used in home cooking and added at the table. But cutting salt from processed food isn't easy. Besides enhancing taste, salt helps provide texture to many foods and acts as a preservative. And Americans have become accustomed to the taste. The Grocery Manufacturers Association, which represents food makers, says many of its members have cut sodium in their products and introduced lower-salt items in recent years. But it believes that any government effort needs to include consumer education and scientific research as well. "It's not as collaborative as it should be," says Robert Earl, the group's vice president for science policy, nutrition and health.

In the U.K., which started a similar salt-reduction effort in 2003, many food makers and restaurant chains have already cut salt by 20% to 30%. The average consumption there is down to 8.6 grams from 9.5 grams a day.

A few critics don't think a broad reduction in sodium is warranted. Michael Alderman, a professor of medicine and public health at Albert Einstein College of Medicine in Bronx, N.Y., says it hasn't been conclusively shown that cutting salt intake across the population would save lives, and it could have unintended consequences. Lowering salt can cause kidney problems and contribute to insulin resistance in some cases, says Dr. Alderman, who is an unpaid consultant to the Salt Institute, an industry group. Darwin Labarthe, director of the CDC's Division for Heart Disease and Stroke Prevention, counters that there's a very broad consensus that reducing salt would cut the risk of heart attacks and strokes, and there is little evidence of harmful effects. The American Heart Association, the American Medical Association and the World Health Organization all urge lower salt consumption.

Besides, says Commissioner Frieden, "We aren't taking choice away from people. We are giving them choice. We want to let them determine how much salt they want to add." What can you do about your own salt intake? It's impossible to know for sure how much you're consuming. Even raw chicken in the grocery store is sometimes "enhanced" with salt water to make it plumper (and heavier, and thus more costly). But you can get some idea by checking the Nutrition Facts labels on products you buy and keeping a running tally. Some bakery goods and breakfast cereals have far more sodium than you'd expect. There's often a wide range of sodium among brands of the same product. Be sure to check the serving size indicated on the label. A bag of chips that looks individual may be listed as multiple servings.

Even low-sodium labels have different meanings: "Sodium free" means less than 5 mg per serving; "very low" has less than 35 mg; "low" is less than 140. "Reduced sodium" just means that it's down 25% from what an earlier formulation was -- but could still be high in sodium, just like "No added salt" doesn't mean salt free.

Ask restaurants to use less salt when you order. Lawrence Appel, a professor of medicine at Johns Hopkins School of Public Health, says many people feel bloated after they eat out. "It's actually a sodium load, and it takes a few days to get rid of it," he says. When you cook at home, experts counsel to use only half the salt the recipe calls for; experiment with herbs and spices, or go with the natural flavor. Kids who grow up with less salt may never develop a "salt tooth." It may take a while to get accustomed to less salt, but once your tastes adjust, you may not want to go back. Commissioner Frieden likens reducing salt to switching from whole milk to skim milk. "If you go back, whole milk tastes like heavy cream," he says.

from The WSJ …

Njoy …