Slashdot Mirror

The solar panel measures 1.65 meters long -- roughly the height of a kitchen refrigerator, or this reporter -- and has a rated power output of about 210 watts. The system can convert 15 percent of the solar energy it receives into hydrogen, the team says.

• Gibbs free energy of water is -237.14 kJ per mole
• Water is 18.015 grams/mole

So decomposing 1 liter of water (1 kg) into elemental H2 and O2 requires -(-237.14 kJ/mole) * (1000 g/kg) / (18.015 g/mole) = 13163 kJ/kg = 13.163 MJ/kg.

• 210 Watts peak * 15% efficiency = 31.5 Watts going into decomposing water at peak production.

So if you could magically hold this panel under the noon sun for 24 hours a day in cloudless weather, it would take (13.163 MJ) / (31.5 Watts) = 417873 seconds = 4.836 days to decompose 1 liter of water into hydrogen and oxygen gas.

Under realistic conditions (i.e. fixed panel, sun moves across sky, weather), the average capacity factor for PV solar in the continental U.S. is about 0.145. So this panel would on average put only (31.5 Watts)*(0.145) = 4.57 Watts into cracking water. And it would take 33.4 days to convert 1 liter of water into H2 and O2 gas.

So you're gonna want to hook up thousands of these to some power lines, and transmit the electricity they generate to a large, expensive electrolysis plant. That plant will use the aggregate power from a thousand panels to to generate H2 gas in a more timely fashion. 48 minutes per liter of water.

If you think being wrong once in the past makes a person wrong now, then you are an easy person to manipulate. You should learn to be more skeptical!

Quite.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wik...

Blue shift. Each individual photon gains energy. The formula is pretty simple E=hc/ https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wik...

There ain't no black holes nearby
And it would take a lot of energy to make one

That's what the Large Hadron Collider is for. Duh.

Pebble-bed reactors have been tried, and the results weren't too good. These advanced reactor designs are great in theory, but they seem to fall over in practice. Fast breeder reactors have had their fair share of issues. Pretty much any reactor that uses liquid metal as coolant seems to turn into expensive dead weight after an unexpected shutdown. The "generation 3+" reactors seem to be our best bet at the moment.

who was just a pale imitation.

ISWYDT
Seriously, they'd use the standard "just one drop" test.

it just shows how truly awful a candidate Hilary was. We're talking about voting patterns overall, not one bad election with the most hated women in America.

I don't need to "believe" anything, it's pretty well documented that states that lean to the GOP depend heavily on the Feds. It's not hard to understand why. They don't invest in their people, and when you don't do that the people who can leave because the roads, schools, water supply and air quality suck rocks. This is the part where you point out folks leaving California and ignore the folks moving there....

Sowell's a hack, btw.

You should do some research on the healthcare plan Hilary was pushing in the 90s as first lady. She tried.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Your complaints about Hillary and Beto are the same complaints many people lodged at Obama during his campaign and during the early years of his presidency. He turned out to be perhaps the finest president in the history of this country. Politicians have to be shrewd. If you just elect idealists, you end up with Jimmy Carters—great people, lofty goals, and the inability effect change. I love Bernie, but he would make a shitty president.

Do you actually believe half of the shit you spout? The top states by GDP closely correlate with the states based on population. The top 10 states by GDP have 56.29% of the country's GDP. Those states also have 53.25% of the population. If you look at the election results for 2016, 6 of those 10 states went for Trump.

Then you act like anyone who doesn't live in one of those blue states is some kind of simpleton that couldn't possibly manage without your superior knowledge of how they should live their lives. Could you be more sanctimonious? Go read Thomas Sowell's The Vision of the Anointed. Maybe you'll learn something and come to your senses.

Do you actually believe half of the shit you spout? The top states by GDP closely correlate with the states based on population. The top 10 states by GDP have 56.29% of the country's GDP. Those states also have 53.25% of the population. If you look at the election results for 2016, 6 of those 10 states went for Trump.

Then you act like anyone who doesn't live in one of those blue states is some kind of simpleton that couldn't possibly manage without your superior knowledge of how they should live their lives. Could you be more sanctimonious? Go read Thomas Sowell's The Vision of the Anointed. Maybe you'll learn something and come to your senses.

A majority of the wealth in this nation is generated by a few states (ironically "blue" ones). The remaining states don't have the resources they need to maintain a modern population. It's not a good idea to abandon them. It's immoral and just plain bad juju to abandon folks to their fate.

And besides, A demagogue will rise up to take advantage of them. If you're lucky you get one that's mostly harmless. If you're not, you get one of these

A majority of the wealth in this nation is generated by a few states (ironically "blue" ones). The remaining states don't have the resources they need to maintain a modern population. It's not a good idea to abandon them. It's immoral and just plain bad juju to abandon folks to their fate.

And besides, A demagogue will rise up to take advantage of them. If you're lucky you get one that's mostly harmless. If you're not, you get one of these

I feel for you. But remember Sturgeon's Law. I'm still here because some of the 10% of good stuff is worth tolerating the 90% of bad stuff.

an aquifer is something different

this is not an aquifer

Silly idiot. Hot sommers cause droughts ... obviously.
Hot winters cause more rain, obviously.

California is more dominated by El Nino and La Nina and the changing period between than by "global warming" at the moment anyway. Hint: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Call it replican,

That would be confused with the Replicant open-source no-proprietary-blobs android project.

Or buy/frankencable a 2+*2+ matrix hdmi switch for $100 and send any input to any output that allows wired video input.

FTFY. Sadly, my laptops, phones, tablets, etc. (i.e. the screens I have available when I don't have access to the TV) don't support video input from wired sources, so wireless is the only way to go.

You can run a f2f HDMI cable through drywall pretty easily and pretty it up with a panel port. [...] run it through the HVAC.

Given that I need to account for the WAF, which means that maximum prettying up must take place, what you're suggesting is that instead of using my existing devices and some free software with no additional purchases and no additional labor, I can instead buy an incredibly long CL2 (or higher) rated HDMI cable, cut a hole in the wall where the panel will go, locate and then cut open the wall at the location(s) where we have horizontal brace(s) that are designed to stop the vertical spread of fire between studs, notch out the brace(s) so the cabling can run through, run the cabling up the wall, drill through the riser, cut into the HVAC conduit and run the cabling through, patch the hole(s) in the HVAC conduit to prevent air from escaping into the attic, insulate around the cabling in the wall to prevent fire from spreading through the notch(es) I made in the brace(s), insulate around the cabling in the riser to prevent air/fire from spreading through the new hole, close and patch the hole(s) in the wall at the brace(s), repaint the walls that we just got done painting, connect and install the new panel for the HDMI, and then repeat almost all of that for the other end of the cable as well.

I've actually considered doing all of that before, but in the end it simply wasn't worth it when it was both easier and cheaper to use wireless for anything other than the TV, and for the TV itself, I have a flat Ethernet cable that's carrying the HDMI signal simply running over the slab and under the carpet padding.

Also worth noting, HDMI doesn't exactly get very long cable runs before you need a powered signal booster. Modern cables are somewhat better, but a few years ago when I was checking, the general advice was that anyone interested in 4K needed to keep their runs at or under 25', which barely gets you across/around a room once you account for vertical changes or going around corners. If you're going to all of that work, you'll likely want to run Ethernet and use HDBaseT instead of running HDMI.

A 1" hole through a floor isnt too tough either, just check for electrical/plumbing

As you may have surmised, I'm on a concrete slab foundation. Running a cable through the floor would be even more onerous than the process I outlined above, given that step one would involve renting a jackhammer.

Ok, I have no problem with that. But how about looking back at history for a solution. Cistern's.

The Basilica Cistern (Turkish: Yerebatan Sarnıcı â" "Cistern Sinking Into Ground"), is the largest of several hundred ancient cisterns that lie beneath the city of Istanbul (formerly Constantinople), Turkey. The cistern, located 150 metres (490 ft) southwest of the Hagia Sophia on the historical peninsula of Sarayburnu, was built in the 6th century during the reign of Byzantine Emperor Justinian I.[1]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basilica_Cistern/

We currently bury utility lines, sewers,piping, and many other things under existing structures We defiantly have the technology to build Cistern's. Modern society has already been built over ancient Cistern's, so I see no reason we can build something as sustainable and safe.

If you think about it. Less would be lost to evaporation.

replenish decades of draining all aquifers

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aquifer_storage_and_recovery

Specifically NorCal water being redirected to Southern California and particularly LA.
[...]
The drought scam in California has been entirely fictional, and mostly related to the mega-cities like San Francisco and Los Angeles stealing all the water from the eastern range [...] The same applies to Southern California agriculture

BS. Cities and towns only use about 10% of the water. The vast majority of water is used for agriculture and for environmental reasons (keeping rivers flowing, wetlands wet, and preventing saltwater inundation in bays). Yes most of the water used by LA metro residents is piped in from elsewhere. But it's a tiny fraction of the water that's redirected around the state. Southern California has very little agriculture - a few orange groves and scattered ground crops. The vast majority of agriculture is in central California (note that the Bay Area is actually in the middle of the state, not Northern California as its generally called, and is adjacent to most of this agricultural productivity).

What needs to happen is for the price of agricultural products grown in California to increase to truly reflect the scarcity of water. Agriculture contributes only 2% to California's GDP, but consumes 80% of its non-environmental water use. California's agriculture industry needs to be charged full price for the water it uses. People in other states will then either pay the higher prices for California crops and livestock, allowing California farmers to afford to buy water from sources in other states. Or they'll refuse to pay the higher prices, allowing production to move to states where it makes more economic sense to grow those crops and livestock. Both of these alleviate the endemic water shortages. But as long as the state government insists on subsidizing its agriculture industry with cheap water, it'll result in water shortages for residents outside of the agricultural areas. That's what happens when you subsidize something - it distorts the economy causing shortages elsewhere.

A "tyranny" is an authoritarian regime in which the power of the state is unchecked and vested into the tyrant.

Yes, which is the only way to get everyone to do the same of anything.

A democratic government with a democratic legislative process is the precise opposite of tyranny, because the outcome of this process involves the whole society, and the process is to a very large degree of negotiation, and not of coercion. You cannot expect that every individual in a large society will agree to the precise legislative outcome, but acceptance of a democratically enacted law while disagreeing with it is something that happens all the time and is not even close to "tyranny".

Wrong.

For example, a lot of people in the US disagree with the second amendment, but they comply with it, and I haven't heard anyone calling it "the amendment of tyranny".

That's because the 2nd amendment is the opposite of tyranny. Tyrannies are applied to people, rights and constitutions are applied to governments (which are certainly not people.) You can't oppress a government because it exists as an entity to provide for citizens.

"You can't legislate away climate change because you can't force everyone to obey" - this is a non-sequitur. You can definitely legislate away an unpleasant side of some human activity by getting mostly everyone to agree it is bad and getting them on board to reduce it.

No, you can't. Legislation only works when backed by threat of force, people just ignore it otherwise. Legislating "save the trees" is functionally identical to saying "if you cut down too many trees we will shoot you," because however many layers of obfuscation you add to the process in the form of fines, jailtime, etc - if someone stands up for their right to tell you to fuck off they get shot for it, that is tyranny.

Ozone, DDT and atmospheric nuclear weapons testing are a few examples of these.

The Ozone hole came back for awhile and appears to grow and shrink in cycles. DDT was something which could be applied to corporations (not people,) and nuclear weapons testing spiked significantly after the start of sanctions against it and agreements to cut back.

There are many, many more. The situation with CO2 is not any different. As long as a sufficient majority of the people agree on the necessary measures to curb CO2, there will be no problem legislating stuff to correct the situation, and this ain't no tyranny.

People don't agree, people didn't even agree with the prior legislation you mentioned. It doesn't stop being tyranny just because you don't think it impacts you personally.

Not very clever, comparing the lowest cost wind to the highest cost coal.

Didn't think anyone would notice?

I can play this game too. LCOE 2018:
Wind: 138
Coal: 46
Clearly coal is less than 1/3 the cost of wind.

Playing with a loaded deck only convinces people that want you to be right.

The problem with the BBC model for journalism is that it creates a huge monolithic organization for news. That promotes groupthink. You need to have a way for small, unconventional, and extremist views to be publicized, so those ideas can spread as long as a sufficient portion of the public who listens agrees with what they're saying. The acceptability of "news" should not be based on getting the approval of some editor or influential journalists who can decide what is or isn't newsworthy. Grass-roots journalism very much needs a way to get the ear of the public so it can spread and flourish. Once upon a time, the idea that women should be allowed to vote was radical and unconventional. Once upon a time, you had to be an idiot to think that racial minorities should be treated the same as whites Once upon a time, marijuana was viewed as an evil gateway drug to hardcore drug abuse. Once upon a time, the LGBT community was ridiculed and the butt of discriminatory jokes. These reforms all started off as small, minority views, and gradually grew to become accepted by the majority. They either would not have come about with the BBC model, or would have taken much longer to come about.

Atmospheric carbon dioxide sequestration is not a very good solution

Indeed. But that is not what we are talking about. We are talking about sequestration of highly concentrated CO2 coming directly out of power plants and cement factories.

Using Oxy-fuel combustion, which removes the N2 before burning, results in almost pure CO2 in the exhaust. The CO2 can then either be injected into geological shale formations, or sold as an industrial feedstock.

If it the CO2 is injected, it can improve the yield from shale gas fields, which results in even more CO2 reduction as the cheap gas displaces much dirtier coal.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Droughts_in_California/

Throughout history, California has experienced many droughts, such as 1841, 1864, 1924, 1928â"1935, 1947â"1950, 1959â"1960, 1976â"1977, 2006â"2010, and 2012â"2017.[1]

and his thoughtful and nuanced policy positions

What exactly are those? I went to his website https://betoorourke.com/ which contains absolutely nothing on his positions. There are only links to a store (one of which is placed prominently), applying for a job in his campaign, and a donating to his campaign. Is this serious?

This guy isn't exactly giving me a reason to even consider him as a serious candidate. Also, he couldn't even beat the Zodiac killer so by the transitive property of politics that I've just invented, he wouldn't unseat Trump, so I'm not interested.

It doesn't seem like its a hard disqualifier. Mudge was at CDC and L0pht and went on to DARPA and Google.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

And my compliments to whoever wrote it. He seems like the sort of person I dream of being in charge. Unfortunately, I am not an American so it is possible they aimed at the wrong demographic.

Except in regulated industries there's no law governing the "fair" share that someone has to offer, or someone has to accept.

Music is a regulated industry pursuant to Title 17, United States Code. In addition, the Sherman Act as amended regulates certain aspects of all industries that engage in "commerce [...] among the several states".

Spotify wants a lower $ charge. Apple owns the platform and controls that access and $ charge.

Specifically, Spotify alleges that Apple is "dumping" the service of negotiating with labels and operating streaming servers by providing it to users for free. (In competition law, dumping refers to pricing a good or service below cost in order to harm competitors.) If the music publishers and record labels get 70 percent, and the App Store gets 30 percent, what does that leave for the service of negotiating with labels and operating streaming servers?

forcing journalism to find a money stream has directly lead to billionaires fighting over the news they can pay for

Actually the current problem of all news being controlled by a single digit number of owners has more to do with Clinton's sins of the 90s: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

The problem with journalism being profit driven, especially in an age where news is basically a commodity that everyone gets for free, is that it corrupts it into a toxic mixture of outrage and hyper-partisan opinion.

When you look at the least biased, most reliable source of news and analysis they tend to be the ones that are not dependent on getting views - the BBC, and agencies like Reuters and AFP.

The sources you cite have an agenda, it's just a bit more subtle: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... https://www.investors.com/poli... It's not unlike colleges that chased out all of the conservatives. They may not even realize just how biased they and and certainly other viewpoints must be wrong because all their friends and colleagues think the same way. It's like the worst of small town close mindedness but at a professional level.

Explain this then:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Your workaround won't work, the same federal law gives the feds sole authority to decide where the timezone boundaries are. No state can move to another timezone without congress writing a bill to allow it.

It does require federal approval for a state to change time zones but importantly changing time zones explicitly does NOT require an act of congress. It merely requires petitioning the Department of Transportation for a change which is obviously a much easier hurdle.

Air France 296? A320s may be good at topiary, but you can only use them once.

US worked on the Sino-Soviet split https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
China was rewarded with US investment and advanced tech.
Taiwan the real China no longer had as much US support.

various riffs on elementary algebra

I suspect that you don't know what elementary algebra actually is.

the research could actually go towards helping prove that APGW is real, rather than just a theory.

I disagree with your choice of words, as "just a theory" makes it sound as if it's someone's hunch/idea/opinion/guess/hypothesis. A scientific theory is something very different, and presents both explanatory and predictive claims that have been tested and stood up to falsification attempts. A scientific theory can never be "proved," as those hard statements are reserved for mathematics and philosophy. Religious folk would muddy the waters with the same "just a theory" argument about the theories of evolution and heliocentricism, and it's very misleading.

It may also help identify better metrics so we can make an accurate prediction as well... since we know they have only failed in all of their models.

I must disagree here as well. Climate models tend to do pretty well at making predictions that are subsequently backed up by observations. See https://www.skepticalscience.c... for a primer on the topic, along with some illustrative videos.

Um, no. The left does not fear that climate change will have a good solution. You're just being silly.

I don't think so. It is not just geo-engineering that the left opposes. They are also opposed to carbon sequestration and nuclear. Both of these use our existing industrial infrastructure, and don't require any big new government initiatives. The economics of building new nukes is questionable, but shutting down working existing nukes was insane.

The left loves big coercive new initiatives. Yet most of the progress that we have made so far, such as LED bulbs, efficient variable speed motors, better insulation, more efficient engines, better batteries, cheap gas from hydraulic fracturing to replace coal, have all come from innovations by capitalists.

The problem with the "Green New Deal" is that it ignores solutions that are working, and focuses instead on spending lots of tax dollars on things that have failed.

Before the rise of xenophobia a bit before the time of World War I, non-citizen permanent residents were often allowed to vote. Restricting school board voting to citizens in a place with lots of immigrants like San Francisco is absurd; most of the people who have been residents long enough to get citizenship probably don't have school-aged children anymore.

I am not doing that at all. The point I made was that the lifecycle emissions for a nuclear power plant were lower than for solar. The IPCC has figures suggesting that solar CO2 emissions on a lifecycle basis are 4 times higher than for nuclear - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/....

The claim that had been made was that because nuclear required refuelling, it would continue to produce CO2 because mining nuclear fuel produces CO2. I just countered that once we take everything in the round, nuclear still produces lower CO2. I also made the point that both are still low CO2 sources anyway, so both are good from a climate change perspective.

In the 1990s, the high school I attended didn't really teach math. Instead, it pushed people into groups and immediately threw them into the work with the expectation that the group could figure it out themselves. It was a rare day that the teacher actually lectured.

Meanwhile, real math teachers are ignored, because their strategy of actually teaching the math doesn't let schools artificially tamper with the scores.

If you want to get rid of math anxiety, a good first step would be to actually teach, not let everyone sink like a stone.

Also worked out well for the Gimli Glider

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gimli_Glider

Don't forget:

Air Transat 236

TACA 110

Also worked out well for the Gimli Glider

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gimli_Glider

Don't forget:

Air Transat 236

TACA 110

The Oxford Dictionaries online dictionary regards the passive form "comprised of" as standard English usage

flight controls from the A320 (the famous plane where the automation led to crashes.

Which famous crashes? I only quickly browsed through the List on Wikipedia and the only one that stood out was Lufthansa Flight 1829, that due to TWO faults AoA sensors (unlike 737-MAX's 1 faulty AoA sensor), commanded a nose down stall recovery. Pilots disconnected the system and recovered.

There is Air France 447, on an Airbus A330. There was a sensor malfunction which led to a sensor discrepancy. The plane detected this, deactivated Auto pilot, and switched to Alternate law. Allowing the pilot to operate outside the protected operating envelope that people blame fly by wire on. They pulled the nose up, the plane responded to the command, told them they were going to enter a stall, then let them enter a stall, and the plane continued to respond to their command for nose up elevator, with 100% thrust, in a stall, all the way from 38,000 ft to the ground. You also had poor crew management where they were both trying to fly the plane with opposing commands on the controls. How should the plane know how to react to such poor crew resource management?

You do also have the A320 that successfully ditched on the Hudson. One of the only cases of a commercial jet successfully ditching.

Worked out pretty good for one guy

What could you possibly have against requiring glider training? Are you going to complain about the industry's discrimination against the blind?

Because it was, in fact, user error. Seriously, if the pilots on Lion Air had followed the checklist for runaway elevator trim (which is what they should have realised it was), the plane would have reverted to completely normal manual flight.

They simply did not activate the trim cutout switches like the checklist says they should have.

Having said that, in my opinion, AoA sensor disagreement should be a standard ECAM message, not an optional extra package. If it had been, chances are the pilots would have aborted the flight entirely. (Yeah, sensor disagreement and you're at FL300 over the ocean? You keep flying. You've just taxing to the runway? Turn around and go back to the gate.)

If we are really going to get picky and bring gravity into this, then there is no known closed form solution for any of this.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Not in the "shuffling symbols around" sense, no.

Literally:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

So for the sake of this research lets assume that all planets are on the same plane (they are not). Lets also assume perfectly circular orbits (they are not).

Any other assumptions they want to make? They pretty much took all the realism out of it already.

What would be a really interesting question (and likely take a lot of computational power), is to look at the criteria for launching spacecraft using gravitational techniques, and calculate all of the optimized deployment windows for like the next 100 years, which are the shortest, shortest by planet, when, etc... Now that would be something. Also something useful (which the other is not), where if you see the next best window for a particular planet is coming up, and it won't be that good for another 75 years, you might you know, do something about it and plan ahead or something.