Are you saying that it is possible to compare the resistance requirements of the container of a fluid vs. the ones of a solid within a fluid by plainly replacing the mass of that solid with an equivalent fluid mass?
I have no clue what you mean by "resistance requirements". If you mean "mass loading", of course you can. Even the loading distribution is roughly the same - greatest at the bottom, less on the sides, little on top. And the towers are indifferent to where the loadings come from, it's just mass transferred from the dampers.
Are you saying that the stress suffered by the walls of a gun (the part through which the bullet flies, whatever the technical name is) which shoots a bullet is equivalent to the one of a toy guy shooting water
Huh? Do you think mass loadings are about pressurized fluids (aka, ? We're talking the simple mass of the contents of the tube. Mass loadings. A Hyperloop capsule is far less dense than a typical liquid, as most of its volume is air.
I'm bewildered by this argument from you. A gun experiences several hundred megapascals of pressure (several thousand atmospheres). A toy watergun experiences a small fraction of one atmosphere. It has nothing to do with mass loadings, the difference between them is about fluid pressures. What fluid pressures are you picturing here - let alone ones exerted at hundreds of megapascals?
And actually, your gun example illustrates the benefit of transient stresses perfectly. To actually contain hundreds of MPa / thousands of atmosphere with the same internal diameter would require a pressure vessel far larger than a gun barrel. A scuba tank is only rated for around 20MPa; that's also around the pressure that hydraulic cylinders operate at, and typical "high pressure" industrial processes (such as the Haber process). The highest-strength hydrogen tanks on the market are around 70MPa. Hundreds of MPa is crazy pressure to actually contain. But as a transient, it's not a problem.
The same is the case with Hyperloop. Not only are the peak mass loadings far lower than pipelines and HSR, they're also only very brief transients.
I am not even sure what to say here.
Well okay then. Thanks for taking the time to let me know.;)
You are saying that transporting a flammable fluid which might eventually pass near some humans
Huh? No, we're talking about transporting a flammable fluid that is always passing near humans, and explosions of which can and do kill people.
might be considered even more dangerous (= stricter regulations) than actually transporting a relevant number of people?!
In normal usage, neither kill people. In extreme failure scenarios, both kill people. The number of people at risk in a severe failure is not grossly disproportionate between the two.
Luckily, most of worldwide regulations think different than you do.
Really, you think the pipeline industry isn't covered by a crazy-intensive permitting process that takes years to complete, and one of the large portions of that being safety risks to people?
What are you even talking about? You do realize that the net heat transfer even in a mild vacuum is almost nil, don't you?
I understand that they are planning to reach a heat-free situation inside the capsule, right? "neither hot nor cold, zero degrees"
..... huh?
Where on Earth did you get the concept that part of the design involves chilling the capsules (and thus the passengers) to absolute zero? Not that that would even affect the above point about the capsule existing within a nearly-zero convection environment, but.... what on Earth?
* Far lower mass loadings -> I guess that you make that assumption by focusing your analysis on eminently theoretical aspects (considering just mass/volume/density inside the pipes) and by completely ignoring more practical ones like what is provoked by the associated momentum (e.g., stress/pressure variations).
A transient (89ms) mass loading (short enough not to allow for any meaningful deflection**) of far lower peak magnitude versus a permanent mass loading of far greater peak magnitude - there is no contest, the latter is much more expensive to build (all else being equal). As for any knock-on effects from variations, the pylons incorporate 3-axis dampers (needed for earthquake protection and maintaining alignment). Note that the pylons are a separate cost line item.
The length of a Hyperloop capsule's worth of a 1g/cc liquid is well over 100 tonnes, vs. 3,1 tonnes for a Hyperloop capsule (plus ~2 tonnes for passengers / luggage). That's a huge difference. And this is ignoring that the bulk of the tube at any given point in time only bears its own weight. A pipeline bears vastly more weight.
** - Re, deflection: even if a pipe segment (nearly an inch thick steel) didn't resist deflection at all, and the segment was essentially in free-fall during the period there was a vehicle moving through it, it would still only deflect by 3,8 centimeters.
Does not carry things that could "leak" and contaminate the ground -> when dealing with vacuum, leaks are certainly a concern; they might not contaminate the environment
Then this isn't a rebuttal at all to this point, now is it? The point was about environmental effects - which most definitely is a major impactor of construction costs. The issue of leaks testing/fixing on costs was addressed in an entirely separate point. And is an issue common to them both. But only one type of leak (fluid pipelines) contaminates its environment.
but their consequences might be much more dangerous
Yes, if you live in a cartoon where an inch thick steel peels back like a banana because of a pinhole. Or in a world where there's absolutely no pressure sensors whatsoever, and air has no viscosity. Also in a world where people don't already work extensively with vacuums in industry and are already well aware of how to handle them. I can promise you, for a refinery with a VDU and with a hydrocracker, workers have a lot more fear of the hydrogen lines than the vacuum lines. Vacuum leaks are an inconvenience, not a threat. An inconvenience that you usually don't even need to deal with immediately, and can postpone until the next maintenance period. They don't spill anything, they don't compromise system integrity, they just mean that you have to run your pumps more than you'd like. VDUs and long vacuum lines use reinforcing rings, generally as the joins between pipe segments. You could shoot one with a cannon and it wouldn't collapse, all you'd do is make a hole in the side.
Preventing collapse in vacuum systems is not magic, it's well-understood engineering. Any engineer worth their salt can readily calculate wall thickness vs. segment length vs. ring diameter in order to make a vacuum system safe against implosion. You may have noticed that Hyperloop One has reinforcing rings. Do you think they just guessed at all of their dimensions? Of course not, they use whatever the engineering specs say makes for a safe vacuum line. You don't make a pipeline by guesswork.
Additionally, dealing with human lives is usually seen as a much bigger problem than environmental contamination
of course musk keeps saying that somehow hyperloop would be cheaper
You know, you could actually RTFM (in this case, TFM = Hyperloop Alpha) rather than being bewildered as to why.
The short of it: it's basically a pipeline, so you start with base pipeline costs for the given diameter. Compared to a pipeline:
Advantages:
* Far lower mass loadings
* Does not carry things that could "leak" and contaminate the ground (much easier environmental permitting, less NIMBY)
* Simpler thermal management
* Much lower pumping requirements (just to head this off: it's a mild vacuum, not a hard vacuum. The energy required (and pump sizes) to pump fluids through a pipeline is far more than is required to simply maintain a mild vacuum)
* Usually periodic branch points
Disadvantages:
* Far greater straightness requirements
* Requires an internal orbital polisher
* Periodic emergency exits
Both share infrastructure requirements at their endpoints, just of different kinds, both require a leak detection process, both require regular sensors, both require earthquake protection, etc. In general, however, pipeline construction is not very expensive, even at large diameters, relative to rail construction. The ready-made pipe segments are brought to the site and an orbital welder connects them together.
Versus rail, Hyperloop offers far lower peak mass loadings. This is because (and feel free to do the math yourself, I have) in both cases, the "track" - whether continuously-welded steel rails or orbital-welded pipe, is well lighter than the vehicles on them, but Hyperloop vehicles - being small with frequent launches rather than heavy with infrequent launches - provide far lower mass loadings. The cost of elevating a structure is directly proportional to its peak mass loadings, and hence the order of magnitude lower peak mass loadings translates to an order of magnitude lower elevation cost, as well as smaller cross section pylons which are easier to locate in tight spaces.
This in turn enables the practical location of it in road medians (with proper crash barriers as needed), if you have government buy-in to the concept. Hyperloop Alpha assumes that you will. I have to concur, it's hugely to the advantage of the government to do so, as the government has to spend huge amounts of public money building transportation infrastructure regardless. Road medians are already permitted for far more onerous environmental and noise conditions (road traffic) than Hyperloop would provide, which should make permitting much easier; the only new thing you're introducing is visual, which you have to introduce for any transportation system construction.
Due to the straightness requirements, the system cannot just stay within road medians. Varying bend radii depending on the speed planned for the segment require various deviations from medians. This requires private land acquisition - budgeted at typical rail rates for private land acquisition - and various tall pylons and/or short tunnel segments (budgeted at typical pipeline tunneling rates) where the landscape dictates it in order to maximize curve radii. And yes, they are typical rates, I've crosschecked the numbers in the document, and encourage you to as well.
Now as for the rest as to why it's so much cheaper than rail, they do cheat on that. There's three main ways. The first is simple: it doesn't carry as many people as California's HSR (it's roughly halfway between HSR and air travel on a logarithmic scale in terms of passenger capacity). That's not really a cheat on the per-passenger cost, but it is a cheat on th
Stop for a second and think of how you would react if the situation were reversed, if someone came here and posted something from Natural News or Democratic Underground.
The content of the post you linked from crazyconspiracycentral.com was addressed. But I guess you stopped reading after seeing your choice in "news" sources criticized.
Infowars, really? You do realize that Alex Jones has admitted in court proceedings that he's just playing a character and doesn't actually believe the stuff he says, don't you?
The actual tweet is a reply to Kanye West: "@kanyewest you should make a shirt that says, "being white is terrorism"". Kanye West - the "George Bush doesn't care about black people" guy. The Obama hasn't accomplished as much as Bush because "...he ain't got those connections. Black people don't have the same level of connections as Jewish people...We ain't Jewish. We don't got family that got money like that." guy. The reason-he-lost-an-awards-show being "maybe my skin's not right" guy. A guy who's a living parody of himself.
And a guy who runs a fashion line. Hence the joke about the T-shirt.
Of course, to you people the problem isn't the fact that Russia not only launched an aggressive campaign against the public to shift the election, but also tried to compromise voting software and spearfish local election officials. No no, that's not the problem at all. The problem is that someone dared leak the fact that they did this. And that it's someone who doesn't like Trump - like most Americans. And oh my god, she also supports BLM, like the majority of people her age group - including white people in her age group. Clearly the problem isn't a major effort by a hostile power to compromise an election - it's that a person who agrees with the stances of the majority dared tell people about it! Damn her!
There is nothing wrong with the English in that post. The problem is your ability to read.
After subsidies, you can get a new electric car for $15K-$18K. Looking right now I see a Leaf is less than $17K, and I believe that gets 120 miles range, which is enough for the large majority of commuters.
And if they want something even worse than that, they could get a neighborhood-electric vehicle (cross between a car and a golf cart, usually closer to the latter;)
If someone wants something worse than that. "That" being in response to a post. Read: If they want something worse than a Leaf. Aka, Not A Leaf.
Continuing: "they could get a neighborhood electric vehicle." A Leaf is a BEV, not a NEV.
You utterly failed in your ability to parse very simple sentences.
Funny how much owners consistantly rate their "shit cars" incredibly highly. Including even in your link trying to argue that they're shit cars
Overall, Cheung says he's "very pleased" with how the process played out and appreciates the responsiveness of Tesla's service team. It also doesn't hurt that he's been driving around in a P90DL loaner since early April.
In contrast, gasoline can provide high efficiency, low pollution power, with a small, cheap engine and catalytic converter.
While they can achieve higher efficiency when operating only in their optimal power band, ICE vehicles typically operate at only about 20% efficiency in typical driving conditions. Meanwhile, a modern combined cycle natural gas plant will frequently achieve over 50% efficiency, and can even approach 60%. When combined with cogeneration (not an option for gasoline cars), efficiency can get into the 90s.
From an emissions point, this is also wrong. Compared to coal, gasoline wins in respect to some pollutants (PM, and would win on SOx except additional power generation requires additional scrubbing under EPA regulations), is a draw in regards to some (NOx) and gets blown away in others (VOCs, CO, etc). Compared to natural gas, it's no contest, gasoline loses, and badly. Also, centralized power stations emit their pollutants at altitude and in less densely populations, rather than at ground level in densely populated areas.
And if they want something even worse than that, they could get a neighborhood-electric vehicle (cross between a car and a golf cart, usually closer to the latter;) )
Meanwhile, the rest of us care about replacing the general-purpose automobile, and hence support things that actually work towards these goals, including advances in battery technology and mass-scale production to drive down battery prices to at least remotely close to their raw material costs (ala Gigafactory).
And internal combustion vehicles were first experimented with in the 1600s, and successfully implemented in the 1700s. Or if you account for all combustion-driven engines, not just internal, then you have to go all the wayback to the bloody 1st century AD.
Of course, it's a stupid line of argument, because almost nothing about modern electric or combustion engines resembles that of their distant predecessors except from a very basic level.
The same principles that work on toys work on full size vehicles. You could literally copy the design.
And get a god-awful crappy EV based with horrible efficiency, range, mass and power. Just like what would happen if you tried to make a car with a bunch of lawnmower engines. A modern EV motor the size of a canteloupe can replace the entire engine of a typical sedan with the same acceleration characteristics (see the stats on, say, the EMRAX series).
The data in the article is confusing - they talk about a 60,5% drop, yet they show a vastly more than 60,5% drop in their graph. Maybe the graph isn't a complete Q1?
Adding up the 2015 figures, I get around 4600 EVs sold. In the same year in Denmark, 206998 cars were sold total in Denmark, so 2,22% of new vehicle sales were EVs. In the US in 2015, 114248 PEVs were sold, versus 17,5m total, so 0,65%. So even if Denmark's EV sales dropped 60,5%, they'd only just be equaling that of the US.
Yes, he most definitely has interest in doing it to himself. It's not quite clear whether he has started the treatment yet or not (in 2015 he stated that he hadn't “quite, quite, quite started yet”), but he definitely plans to at the very least.
Why are you still talking as if the GP was talking about employer-provided incentives when the GP was very clearly talking about personal incentives? It's almost looking as if you were trying to make a point about something else and decided to inject it into the conversation here because someone used a word you felt you could chain off of.
And yes, low-end wages can be expected to go down with UBI - as they should. Minimum wage should disappear, because it's just one of the many pieces of a patchwork currently in use to approximate a UBI. In turn, corporate tax rates can rise (compensating for the windfall to employers for not having to pay as much), in turn helping pay for the UBI.
That said, your notion that people would tend to only try to work up to $1200/mo take-home income (far below the US poverty line) is silly. And contradicted by the study that forms the basis of this Slashdot article.
UBI doesn't make vast amounts of money for comfortable living appear out of thin air. 29% of the average US household take-home income is under $14k. The poverty line in the US is around $22k.
UBI offers a replacement for welfare, social security, minimum wages, unemployment insurance, and countless other things. Total combined welfare in the US ranged from $16984 (Mississippi) to $49175 (Hawaii) in 2013 (everything from direct payments to assistance for food, housing, energy, etc, both federal and state), according to the conservative Cato Institute. Social Security in the US averages $16k. Minimum wage is $15.1k. Etc. So keep those numbers in perspective. To put $14k a different way, that's $1167 per month - and given that a household is not supposed to spend more than 30% of their income on rent (greater than 30% is defined as "rent burdened"), that would suggest a rent of no more than $350 per month. And we're talking household income here, not individual. And that's income that would be without other added assistance (food, housing, etc), unless your goal is to double up the welfare system rather than replace it.
The big difference with today's welfare patchworks is that UBI is far more efficient (no huge bureaucratic mess, no "hoops" for people to jump through to prove qualifications, etc), doesn't have "cracks" for people to fall through. doesn't have any "cliffs" that disincentivize people to work further, etc. You don't "lose benefits" by working more - any extra work you do is extra income. To move you from poverty wages (UBI) to having the resources to not have to live in a dump, to be able to afford a vehicle, electronics, whatever it is that you enjoy in life. And if you really are the rare sort of person who actually likes living on poverty wages rather than working... well, that probably already describes your situation today.
They're not talking about "incentives from employers". They're talking about the personal incentive ("incentive (n): something that incites or tends to incite to action or greater effort, as a reward offered for increased productivity.") to work. Aka, under most welfare systems, there's a "welfare cliff" where if a person works more, their income actually drops as they lose their benefits - and thus there's a disincentive to work past that cliff. Under UBI, there is no such cliff - the more you work, the more you earn.
It's a serious issue. A lot of people who are on benefits for various physical or mental disabilities have "marginal" ability to work. Many want to work, but are afraid that if they take on a job, lose their benefits, and then it ultimately turns out that their condition prevents them from fulfilling the job requirements (a very real risk), that they'll be screwed. It keeps a lot of people who might actually be able to work out of the job marketplace for no good reason.
1. Open up your refrigerator. 2. Look at each object in there, and the percentage of its ingredients by mass require pollination to produce crops.
You'll find that the vast majority do not.
Most plants that require pollination - while they're often tasty things - make up only small portions of our diet. Grasses that animals graze on? Wind pollinated. Animal feeds (predominantly grain)? Wind pollinated. That's meat and dairy. What about the bulk plant staples? The biggest things are grains, such as wheat, corn, rice, etc (wind / self pollination); legumes, particularly soy (self-pollinating); tubers, mainly potatoes and sweet potatoes (again, no need for pollinators); etc. What about plants that aren't bulk staples but are important for nutrients? So that's root vegetables like carrots (no pollinators needed), greens like lettuce (no pollinators needed) and brassicas (no pollinators needed), onions, etc. Add in those which are optional pollinators and/or have self-fertile cultivars, like tomatoes, peppers, eggplants, squash, etc. What things are left? It's mainly sugary things - berries, tree fruits, melons, etc, as well as some nuts. Again, tasty, but not at all essential for the diet.
And of course it's a giant red herring because even if you can't breed a self fertile version of various crops, you can either hand pollinate (increases the price, but it absolutely can be done, and is done for some crops) or use IPM + multiculture rather than heavy pesticide coverage + monoculture. And if hand pollination was required, you know what would happen, almost guaranteed, within five years? You'd see big industrial pollination equipment hitting the market. Agricultural equipment today is already a lot more complicated than that (ever seen some of the nut-harvesting equipment that's out there now?).
Honeybees simply aren't necessary. They're nice to have, absolutely. But necessary? No.
And that's all a moot point because honeybees aren't going anywhere. Going from 15-20% annual colony loss to 30-40% annual colony loss just means that you have to pay a little more for pollination services.
Lettuce simply does not require insects to go to seed. Or cross-pollinate. Insects allow lettuce to cross-pollinate over long distances, but that's irrelevant (and even undesirable) for mass market seed production.
Bottom line he claimed
Bottom line, everything that you said he claimed wrong about, he was actually right about.
Slashdot Mirror
I have no clue what you mean by "resistance requirements". If you mean "mass loading", of course you can. Even the loading distribution is roughly the same - greatest at the bottom, less on the sides, little on top. And the towers are indifferent to where the loadings come from, it's just mass transferred from the dampers.
Huh? Do you think mass loadings are about pressurized fluids (aka, ? We're talking the simple mass of the contents of the tube. Mass loadings. A Hyperloop capsule is far less dense than a typical liquid, as most of its volume is air.
I'm bewildered by this argument from you. A gun experiences several hundred megapascals of pressure (several thousand atmospheres). A toy watergun experiences a small fraction of one atmosphere. It has nothing to do with mass loadings, the difference between them is about fluid pressures. What fluid pressures are you picturing here - let alone ones exerted at hundreds of megapascals?
And actually, your gun example illustrates the benefit of transient stresses perfectly. To actually contain hundreds of MPa / thousands of atmosphere with the same internal diameter would require a pressure vessel far larger than a gun barrel. A scuba tank is only rated for around 20MPa; that's also around the pressure that hydraulic cylinders operate at, and typical "high pressure" industrial processes (such as the Haber process). The highest-strength hydrogen tanks on the market are around 70MPa. Hundreds of MPa is crazy pressure to actually contain. But as a transient, it's not a problem.
The same is the case with Hyperloop. Not only are the peak mass loadings far lower than pipelines and HSR, they're also only very brief transients.
Well okay then. Thanks for taking the time to let me know. ;)
Huh? No, we're talking about transporting a flammable fluid that is always passing near humans, and explosions of which can and do kill people.
In normal usage, neither kill people. In extreme failure scenarios, both kill people. The number of people at risk in a severe failure is not grossly disproportionate between the two.
Really, you think the pipeline industry isn't covered by a crazy-intensive permitting process that takes years to complete, and one of the large portions of that being safety risks to people?
Where on Earth did you get the concept that part of the design involves chilling the capsules (and thus the passengers) to absolute zero? Not that that would even affect the above point about the capsule existing within a nearly-zero convection environment, but .... what on Earth?
I'm bad about proofreading as well :)
A transient (89ms) mass loading (short enough not to allow for any meaningful deflection**) of far lower peak magnitude versus a permanent mass loading of far greater peak magnitude - there is no contest, the latter is much more expensive to build (all else being equal). As for any knock-on effects from variations, the pylons incorporate 3-axis dampers (needed for earthquake protection and maintaining alignment). Note that the pylons are a separate cost line item.
The length of a Hyperloop capsule's worth of a 1g/cc liquid is well over 100 tonnes, vs. 3,1 tonnes for a Hyperloop capsule (plus ~2 tonnes for passengers / luggage). That's a huge difference. And this is ignoring that the bulk of the tube at any given point in time only bears its own weight. A pipeline bears vastly more weight.
** - Re, deflection: even if a pipe segment (nearly an inch thick steel) didn't resist deflection at all, and the segment was essentially in free-fall during the period there was a vehicle moving through it, it would still only deflect by 3,8 centimeters.
Then this isn't a rebuttal at all to this point, now is it? The point was about environmental effects - which most definitely is a major impactor of construction costs. The issue of leaks testing/fixing on costs was addressed in an entirely separate point. And is an issue common to them both. But only one type of leak (fluid pipelines) contaminates its environment.
Yes, if you live in a cartoon where an inch thick steel peels back like a banana because of a pinhole. Or in a world where there's absolutely no pressure sensors whatsoever, and air has no viscosity. Also in a world where people don't already work extensively with vacuums in industry and are already well aware of how to handle them. I can promise you, for a refinery with a VDU and with a hydrocracker, workers have a lot more fear of the hydrogen lines than the vacuum lines. Vacuum leaks are an inconvenience, not a threat. An inconvenience that you usually don't even need to deal with immediately, and can postpone until the next maintenance period. They don't spill anything, they don't compromise system integrity, they just mean that you have to run your pumps more than you'd like. VDUs and long vacuum lines use reinforcing rings, generally as the joins between pipe segments. You could shoot one with a cannon and it wouldn't collapse, all you'd do is make a hole in the side.
Preventing collapse in vacuum systems is not magic, it's well-understood engineering. Any engineer worth their salt can readily calculate wall thickness vs. segment length vs. ring diameter in order to make a vacuum system safe against implosion. You may have noticed that Hyperloop One has reinforcing rings. Do you think they just guessed at all of their dimensions? Of course not, they use whatever the engineering specs say makes for a safe vacuum line. You don't make a pipeline by guesswork.
Right, because transporting flammable (
Wow, I have a tribute band. Cool! :)
Speak for yourself - I lost a ton of money on the Doggerland Hyperloop project when it went under.
If you're willing to abide by the same free-movement requirements you're currently subjected to, sure.
That'd tick off the UKIPers to no end, mind you. ;)
You know, you could actually RTFM (in this case, TFM = Hyperloop Alpha) rather than being bewildered as to why.
The short of it: it's basically a pipeline, so you start with base pipeline costs for the given diameter. Compared to a pipeline:
Advantages:
* Far lower mass loadings
* Does not carry things that could "leak" and contaminate the ground (much easier environmental permitting, less NIMBY)
* Simpler thermal management
* Much lower pumping requirements (just to head this off: it's a mild vacuum, not a hard vacuum. The energy required (and pump sizes) to pump fluids through a pipeline is far more than is required to simply maintain a mild vacuum)
* Usually periodic branch points
Disadvantages:
* Far greater straightness requirements
* Requires an internal orbital polisher
* Periodic emergency exits
Both share infrastructure requirements at their endpoints, just of different kinds, both require a leak detection process, both require regular sensors, both require earthquake protection, etc. In general, however, pipeline construction is not very expensive, even at large diameters, relative to rail construction. The ready-made pipe segments are brought to the site and an orbital welder connects them together.
Versus rail, Hyperloop offers far lower peak mass loadings. This is because (and feel free to do the math yourself, I have) in both cases, the "track" - whether continuously-welded steel rails or orbital-welded pipe, is well lighter than the vehicles on them, but Hyperloop vehicles - being small with frequent launches rather than heavy with infrequent launches - provide far lower mass loadings. The cost of elevating a structure is directly proportional to its peak mass loadings, and hence the order of magnitude lower peak mass loadings translates to an order of magnitude lower elevation cost, as well as smaller cross section pylons which are easier to locate in tight spaces.
This in turn enables the practical location of it in road medians (with proper crash barriers as needed), if you have government buy-in to the concept. Hyperloop Alpha assumes that you will. I have to concur, it's hugely to the advantage of the government to do so, as the government has to spend huge amounts of public money building transportation infrastructure regardless. Road medians are already permitted for far more onerous environmental and noise conditions (road traffic) than Hyperloop would provide, which should make permitting much easier; the only new thing you're introducing is visual, which you have to introduce for any transportation system construction.
Due to the straightness requirements, the system cannot just stay within road medians. Varying bend radii depending on the speed planned for the segment require various deviations from medians. This requires private land acquisition - budgeted at typical rail rates for private land acquisition - and various tall pylons and/or short tunnel segments (budgeted at typical pipeline tunneling rates) where the landscape dictates it in order to maximize curve radii. And yes, they are typical rates, I've crosschecked the numbers in the document, and encourage you to as well.
Now as for the rest as to why it's so much cheaper than rail, they do cheat on that. There's three main ways. The first is simple: it doesn't carry as many people as California's HSR (it's roughly halfway between HSR and air travel on a logarithmic scale in terms of passenger capacity). That's not really a cheat on the per-passenger cost, but it is a cheat on th
Stop for a second and think of how you would react if the situation were reversed, if someone came here and posted something from Natural News or Democratic Underground.
The content of the post you linked from crazyconspiracycentral.com was addressed. But I guess you stopped reading after seeing your choice in "news" sources criticized.
Infowars, really? You do realize that Alex Jones has admitted in court proceedings that he's just playing a character and doesn't actually believe the stuff he says, don't you?
The actual tweet is a reply to Kanye West: "@kanyewest you should make a shirt that says, "being white is terrorism"". Kanye West - the "George Bush doesn't care about black people" guy. The Obama hasn't accomplished as much as Bush because "...he ain't got those connections. Black people don't have the same level of connections as Jewish people...We ain't Jewish. We don't got family that got money like that." guy. The reason-he-lost-an-awards-show being "maybe my skin's not right" guy. A guy who's a living parody of himself.
And a guy who runs a fashion line. Hence the joke about the T-shirt.
Of course, to you people the problem isn't the fact that Russia not only launched an aggressive campaign against the public to shift the election, but also tried to compromise voting software and spearfish local election officials. No no, that's not the problem at all. The problem is that someone dared leak the fact that they did this. And that it's someone who doesn't like Trump - like most Americans. And oh my god, she also supports BLM, like the majority of people her age group - including white people in her age group. Clearly the problem isn't a major effort by a hostile power to compromise an election - it's that a person who agrees with the stances of the majority dared tell people about it! Damn her!
Ed: *** in response to a post about the Leaf.
There is nothing wrong with the English in that post. The problem is your ability to read.
If someone wants something worse than that. "That" being in response to a post. Read: If they want something worse than a Leaf. Aka, Not A Leaf.
Continuing: "they could get a neighborhood electric vehicle." A Leaf is a BEV, not a NEV.
You utterly failed in your ability to parse very simple sentences.
Please re-read what you're replying to and try again.
Funny how much owners consistantly rate their "shit cars" incredibly highly. Including even in your link trying to argue that they're shit cars
While they can achieve higher efficiency when operating only in their optimal power band, ICE vehicles typically operate at only about 20% efficiency in typical driving conditions. Meanwhile, a modern combined cycle natural gas plant will frequently achieve over 50% efficiency, and can even approach 60%. When combined with cogeneration (not an option for gasoline cars), efficiency can get into the 90s.
From an emissions point, this is also wrong. Compared to coal, gasoline wins in respect to some pollutants (PM, and would win on SOx except additional power generation requires additional scrubbing under EPA regulations), is a draw in regards to some (NOx) and gets blown away in others (VOCs, CO, etc). Compared to natural gas, it's no contest, gasoline loses, and badly. Also, centralized power stations emit their pollutants at altitude and in less densely populations, rather than at ground level in densely populated areas.
And if they want something even worse than that, they could get a neighborhood-electric vehicle (cross between a car and a golf cart, usually closer to the latter ;) )
Meanwhile, the rest of us care about replacing the general-purpose automobile, and hence support things that actually work towards these goals, including advances in battery technology and mass-scale production to drive down battery prices to at least remotely close to their raw material costs (ala Gigafactory).
And internal combustion vehicles were first experimented with in the 1600s, and successfully implemented in the 1700s. Or if you account for all combustion-driven engines, not just internal, then you have to go all the wayback to the bloody 1st century AD.
Of course, it's a stupid line of argument, because almost nothing about modern electric or combustion engines resembles that of their distant predecessors except from a very basic level.
And get a god-awful crappy EV based with horrible efficiency, range, mass and power. Just like what would happen if you tried to make a car with a bunch of lawnmower engines. A modern EV motor the size of a canteloupe can replace the entire engine of a typical sedan with the same acceleration characteristics (see the stats on, say, the EMRAX series).
The data in the article is confusing - they talk about a 60,5% drop, yet they show a vastly more than 60,5% drop in their graph. Maybe the graph isn't a complete Q1?
Adding up the 2015 figures, I get around 4600 EVs sold. In the same year in Denmark, 206998 cars were sold total in Denmark, so 2,22% of new vehicle sales were EVs. In the US in 2015, 114248 PEVs were sold, versus 17,5m total, so 0,65%. So even if Denmark's EV sales dropped 60,5%, they'd only just be equaling that of the US.
Sure about that?
Yes, he most definitely has interest in doing it to himself. It's not quite clear whether he has started the treatment yet or not (in 2015 he stated that he hadn't “quite, quite, quite started yet”), but he definitely plans to at the very least.
... Peter Thiel would be a real-life vampire would actually explain a lot.
Why are you still talking as if the GP was talking about employer-provided incentives when the GP was very clearly talking about personal incentives? It's almost looking as if you were trying to make a point about something else and decided to inject it into the conversation here because someone used a word you felt you could chain off of.
And yes, low-end wages can be expected to go down with UBI - as they should. Minimum wage should disappear, because it's just one of the many pieces of a patchwork currently in use to approximate a UBI. In turn, corporate tax rates can rise (compensating for the windfall to employers for not having to pay as much), in turn helping pay for the UBI.
That said, your notion that people would tend to only try to work up to $1200/mo take-home income (far below the US poverty line) is silly. And contradicted by the study that forms the basis of this Slashdot article.
UBI doesn't make vast amounts of money for comfortable living appear out of thin air. 29% of the average US household take-home income is under $14k. The poverty line in the US is around $22k.
UBI offers a replacement for welfare, social security, minimum wages, unemployment insurance, and countless other things. Total combined welfare in the US ranged from $16984 (Mississippi) to $49175 (Hawaii) in 2013 (everything from direct payments to assistance for food, housing, energy, etc, both federal and state), according to the conservative Cato Institute. Social Security in the US averages $16k. Minimum wage is $15.1k. Etc. So keep those numbers in perspective. To put $14k a different way, that's $1167 per month - and given that a household is not supposed to spend more than 30% of their income on rent (greater than 30% is defined as "rent burdened"), that would suggest a rent of no more than $350 per month. And we're talking household income here, not individual. And that's income that would be without other added assistance (food, housing, etc), unless your goal is to double up the welfare system rather than replace it.
The big difference with today's welfare patchworks is that UBI is far more efficient (no huge bureaucratic mess, no "hoops" for people to jump through to prove qualifications, etc), doesn't have "cracks" for people to fall through. doesn't have any "cliffs" that disincentivize people to work further, etc. You don't "lose benefits" by working more - any extra work you do is extra income. To move you from poverty wages (UBI) to having the resources to not have to live in a dump, to be able to afford a vehicle, electronics, whatever it is that you enjoy in life. And if you really are the rare sort of person who actually likes living on poverty wages rather than working... well, that probably already describes your situation today.
*Whoosh*
They're not talking about "incentives from employers". They're talking about the personal incentive ("incentive (n): something that incites or tends to incite to action or greater effort, as a reward offered for increased productivity.") to work. Aka, under most welfare systems, there's a "welfare cliff" where if a person works more, their income actually drops as they lose their benefits - and thus there's a disincentive to work past that cliff. Under UBI, there is no such cliff - the more you work, the more you earn.
It's a serious issue. A lot of people who are on benefits for various physical or mental disabilities have "marginal" ability to work. Many want to work, but are afraid that if they take on a job, lose their benefits, and then it ultimately turns out that their condition prevents them from fulfilling the job requirements (a very real risk), that they'll be screwed. It keeps a lot of people who might actually be able to work out of the job marketplace for no good reason.
1. Open up your refrigerator.
2. Look at each object in there, and the percentage of its ingredients by mass require pollination to produce crops.
You'll find that the vast majority do not.
Most plants that require pollination - while they're often tasty things - make up only small portions of our diet. Grasses that animals graze on? Wind pollinated. Animal feeds (predominantly grain)? Wind pollinated. That's meat and dairy. What about the bulk plant staples? The biggest things are grains, such as wheat, corn, rice, etc (wind / self pollination); legumes, particularly soy (self-pollinating); tubers, mainly potatoes and sweet potatoes (again, no need for pollinators); etc. What about plants that aren't bulk staples but are important for nutrients? So that's root vegetables like carrots (no pollinators needed), greens like lettuce (no pollinators needed) and brassicas (no pollinators needed), onions, etc. Add in those which are optional pollinators and/or have self-fertile cultivars, like tomatoes, peppers, eggplants, squash, etc. What things are left? It's mainly sugary things - berries, tree fruits, melons, etc, as well as some nuts. Again, tasty, but not at all essential for the diet.
And of course it's a giant red herring because even if you can't breed a self fertile version of various crops, you can either hand pollinate (increases the price, but it absolutely can be done, and is done for some crops) or use IPM + multiculture rather than heavy pesticide coverage + monoculture. And if hand pollination was required, you know what would happen, almost guaranteed, within five years? You'd see big industrial pollination equipment hitting the market. Agricultural equipment today is already a lot more complicated than that (ever seen some of the nut-harvesting equipment that's out there now?).
Honeybees simply aren't necessary. They're nice to have, absolutely. But necessary? No.
And that's all a moot point because honeybees aren't going anywhere. Going from 15-20% annual colony loss to 30-40% annual colony loss just means that you have to pay a little more for pollination services.
You mean like in a field of lettuce? ;)
And lettuce does all three - self, wind, and insect pollination. Yes, lettuce will self-pollinate if not otherwise pollinated. Another link. And another.
Lettuce simply does not require insects to go to seed. Or cross-pollinate. Insects allow lettuce to cross-pollinate over long distances, but that's irrelevant (and even undesirable) for mass market seed production.
Bottom line, everything that you said he claimed wrong about, he was actually right about.
They're mixing up their "spooked by anything related to chemistry" talking points ;)