Actually no. The low concentration of C02 in the atmosphere means that dry ice sublimates faster than it freezes at the temperatures that were recorded in Antarctica. So flakes of dry ice would never get a chance to form.
That's true, but those other parts of the world generally also have much better mass transit options than what's typically available in the USA. Add to that the fact that there's a significant car culture here, and with that, urban sprawl. Those facts aren't going to change that much in the space of ten years, so we're still going to have a large percentage of people driving cars to and from work every day, as well as to grandma's house on the weekends. The difference will be that many people wont be able to afford it with a gasoline fueled car. At least not with average commutes of 30 miles. So people will try to move closer to work, travel less by car, and buy more electric and hybrid cars.
The intent of this is not to add to existing fuel tax, it's to replace the fuel tax with something that will cover electric vehicles. That's something that will HAVE to happen as more electric vehicles start using the roads. Without it we won't have the money to maintain our infrastructure. Specific details of rates for commercial vehicles vs passenger vehicles could be set such that there is no significant change in cost per mile to ship something, or average cost per mile to drive to grandmas.
In the past decade, the cost of regular unleaded gasoline increased by 136%. If we extrapolate that into the next decade (based on growth in consumption in China and India, I don't think that's terribly pessimistic), we'll be paying about $9.20 per gallon in 2021. That sort of cost is going to make driving a gasoline fueled car too expensive for a large chunk of the population. Even if there are millions of gas fueled cars still around (and there will be) I'd be astounded if a majority of new passenger vehicles were not electric / fully hybrid by that point.
Our highways are thinner because we have so many freaking miles of them compared to our population. There are over 163,000 miles of highways in the US, compared with about 12,000 miles of highway in Germany. The population of the US 307,006,550 and Germany's is 81,879,976. That means the cost of a mile of highway in Germany is spread out among 6823 people. In the US, the cost of a mile of highway is spread among 1883 people.
In the US, we simply can't afford to build highways to the same specs as places like Germany. The numbers are against us.
For a large-ish 2000MW plant, it would need 260000 gallons per second of fresh water. At the MOUTH on the Mississippi (where it meets the ocean), that would make up about 5.8% of the over all flow of the river. Not as big of a deal as you are suggesting
If you diverted a quarter of the flow (probably possible, if not practical), you could supply a plant that provides over 8000MW. It would certainly be a big facility, but that's also a lot of electricity.
cold fusion isn't a reasonable comparison. You can't just look at a cold fusion experiment and say, "Yup, there's more energy coming out than going in." You can just look at a balloon made of lead floating in a room and say "Yup, that's a functional balloon made of lead"
I thought you were saying that the Falcon Heavy wasn't impressive because it was it was aimed at heavy lift and not cost efficiency, but after re-reading your comment I realize I was mistaken.
In terms of what they are accomplishing with that $100M, it IS practically nothing. NASA would spend that much just doing feasibility studies. SpaceX has actually delivered two functional rockets and a space capsule, and soon another rocket. AND, not only have they done all that, they've also managed to create designs that are significantly more efficient than the competition. It's very impressive.
It's also completely impractical to ban petrol cars outright without a reasonable period for people to make arrangements beforehand. Setting it at 2050 (probably could have been 2020 though. I'll give you that.) means that by that time practical electric cars should be widely available, and anyone in the city will have had to replace their car by then anyway. So people will buy an electric car instead of a petrol one when they need to replace their old car. Also, people in the EU can generally take a train when they want to travel long distances, so petrol cars aren't as much of a necessity as they are in places like the USA.
No need to electrify the boats though, the city will be covered with water by 2050 anyway. (both due to the island settling and sea level rise)...visit now if you can. Seriously.
The point was that you either pay the "early termination fee" upon ending the contract before stipulated, or by buying the phone out-right. Ether way you end up paying about the same amount of money, as they don't discount your monthly service just because you own your phone. You are just subsidizing their profit margin if you bring your own phone, or buy one outright from them.
What's your point? Rockets capable of getting to orbit were science fiction not that many years ago. There are, at least theoretically, materials strong enough to build one, so the rest of the issues are merely technical challenges to work out, but nothing that's impossible. We aren't talking about teleportation or warp drives here. A space elevator is possible with currently conceivable technology.
You are looking at the laser beam as a ray where the tip moves instantly and as quickly as you rotate the laser, but in reality you have a stream of particles that once emitted, continue on their original course. Visualize it as swinging a garden hose back and forth. The point at which the water strikes doesn't move instantly. It takes a moment to catch up to where the nozzle is pointed. The same is true for a laser.
All depends on how you look at it. A fair number of people that are in to golf spend say $800/year for a club membership. Or people that are in to cars might spend $400 a month for that shiny new sports car. $2000 for that fancy TV, etc. All of the aforementioned things being primarily for entertainment, so the graphics card doesn't look so bad in comparison. Granted, these would all be considered to be on the luxury end of the price curve, but if you have the money to spend and games are your thing, why not.
"lots of money" is a relative statement. It takes "lots of money" it invest in a new oil field too. The question comes down to what is a better investment. What produces a greater return.
*If* this solar reactor tech ends up having an economic advantage vs fossil fuel production (and I'm not saying it will. Frankly it probably won't but there's no way to know at this point), then companies will begin to build infrastructure that uses this solar technology instead of investing in fossil fuels. Over time as the easily accessible oil in existing wells runs out, companies just won't invest as much in producing more oil because there will be a better return on investment from going solar. It would be a gradual transition, just like the transition to using oil was gradual. There won't be any sudden massive removal of existing productive energy infrastructure. It will simply decline in use.
So what that we have the oil infrastructure? It was a hypothetical situation.
My point is that the feasibility of an energy technology shouldn't be discounted just because it would take a lot of investment in order to make practical.
Only the dyson cloud could be built without significant advances in material technology. Also you would have to solve the stability problem with spheres and rings.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually no. The low concentration of C02 in the atmosphere means that dry ice sublimates faster than it freezes at the temperatures that were recorded in Antarctica. So flakes of dry ice would never get a chance to form.
That's true, but those other parts of the world generally also have much better mass transit options than what's typically available in the USA. Add to that the fact that there's a significant car culture here, and with that, urban sprawl. Those facts aren't going to change that much in the space of ten years, so we're still going to have a large percentage of people driving cars to and from work every day, as well as to grandma's house on the weekends. The difference will be that many people wont be able to afford it with a gasoline fueled car. At least not with average commutes of 30 miles. So people will try to move closer to work, travel less by car, and buy more electric and hybrid cars.
That's all well and good, but how do you tax electric vehicles that can charge from any old electrical outlet?
The intent of this is not to add to existing fuel tax, it's to replace the fuel tax with something that will cover electric vehicles. That's something that will HAVE to happen as more electric vehicles start using the roads. Without it we won't have the money to maintain our infrastructure. Specific details of rates for commercial vehicles vs passenger vehicles could be set such that there is no significant change in cost per mile to ship something, or average cost per mile to drive to grandmas.
In the past decade, the cost of regular unleaded gasoline increased by 136%. If we extrapolate that into the next decade (based on growth in consumption in China and India, I don't think that's terribly pessimistic), we'll be paying about $9.20 per gallon in 2021. That sort of cost is going to make driving a gasoline fueled car too expensive for a large chunk of the population. Even if there are millions of gas fueled cars still around (and there will be) I'd be astounded if a majority of new passenger vehicles were not electric / fully hybrid by that point.
Actually, that should have been 12000 kilometers of highway in Germany, which only makes the difference worse.
Our highways are thinner because we have so many freaking miles of them compared to our population. There are over 163,000 miles of highways in the US, compared with about 12,000 miles of highway in Germany. The population of the US 307,006,550 and Germany's is 81,879,976. That means the cost of a mile of highway in Germany is spread out among 6823 people. In the US, the cost of a mile of highway is spread among 1883 people. In the US, we simply can't afford to build highways to the same specs as places like Germany. The numbers are against us.
For a large-ish 2000MW plant, it would need 260000 gallons per second of fresh water. At the MOUTH on the Mississippi (where it meets the ocean), that would make up about 5.8% of the over all flow of the river. Not as big of a deal as you are suggesting
If you diverted a quarter of the flow (probably possible, if not practical), you could supply a plant that provides over 8000MW. It would certainly be a big facility, but that's also a lot of electricity.
...but can it stop and collaborate?
Just double right click. Not sure why that works but it's working for me.
cold fusion isn't a reasonable comparison. You can't just look at a cold fusion experiment and say, "Yup, there's more energy coming out than going in." You can just look at a balloon made of lead floating in a room and say "Yup, that's a functional balloon made of lead"
I thought you were saying that the Falcon Heavy wasn't impressive because it was it was aimed at heavy lift and not cost efficiency, but after re-reading your comment I realize I was mistaken.
In terms of what they are accomplishing with that $100M, it IS practically nothing. NASA would spend that much just doing feasibility studies. SpaceX has actually delivered two functional rockets and a space capsule, and soon another rocket. AND, not only have they done all that, they've also managed to create designs that are significantly more efficient than the competition. It's very impressive.
The Falcon Heavy is cheap (or is expected to be) at $1000/lb. For comparison, it cost about ten times that to launch a payload on the Space Shuttle.
It's also completely impractical to ban petrol cars outright without a reasonable period for people to make arrangements beforehand. Setting it at 2050 (probably could have been 2020 though. I'll give you that.) means that by that time practical electric cars should be widely available, and anyone in the city will have had to replace their car by then anyway. So people will buy an electric car instead of a petrol one when they need to replace their old car. Also, people in the EU can generally take a train when they want to travel long distances, so petrol cars aren't as much of a necessity as they are in places like the USA.
Lots of, shall we say, "horse byproduct" though.
Stinky.
No need to electrify the boats though, the city will be covered with water by 2050 anyway. (both due to the island settling and sea level rise) ...visit now if you can. Seriously.
The point was that you either pay the "early termination fee" upon ending the contract before stipulated, or by buying the phone out-right. Ether way you end up paying about the same amount of money, as they don't discount your monthly service just because you own your phone. You are just subsidizing their profit margin if you bring your own phone, or buy one outright from them.
1kw?! A couple of watts would be enough to blind you, at least wherever the laser focused on your retina.
A space elevator is science fiction.
What's your point? Rockets capable of getting to orbit were science fiction not that many years ago. There are, at least theoretically, materials strong enough to build one, so the rest of the issues are merely technical challenges to work out, but nothing that's impossible. We aren't talking about teleportation or warp drives here. A space elevator is possible with currently conceivable technology.
You are looking at the laser beam as a ray where the tip moves instantly and as quickly as you rotate the laser, but in reality you have a stream of particles that once emitted, continue on their original course. Visualize it as swinging a garden hose back and forth. The point at which the water strikes doesn't move instantly. It takes a moment to catch up to where the nozzle is pointed. The same is true for a laser.
Takes gaming too seriously: $251+
All depends on how you look at it. A fair number of people that are in to golf spend say $800/year for a club membership. Or people that are in to cars might spend $400 a month for that shiny new sports car. $2000 for that fancy TV, etc. All of the aforementioned things being primarily for entertainment, so the graphics card doesn't look so bad in comparison. Granted, these would all be considered to be on the luxury end of the price curve, but if you have the money to spend and games are your thing, why not.
"lots of money" is a relative statement. It takes "lots of money" it invest in a new oil field too. The question comes down to what is a better investment. What produces a greater return.
*If* this solar reactor tech ends up having an economic advantage vs fossil fuel production (and I'm not saying it will. Frankly it probably won't but there's no way to know at this point), then companies will begin to build infrastructure that uses this solar technology instead of investing in fossil fuels. Over time as the easily accessible oil in existing wells runs out, companies just won't invest as much in producing more oil because there will be a better return on investment from going solar. It would be a gradual transition, just like the transition to using oil was gradual. There won't be any sudden massive removal of existing productive energy infrastructure. It will simply decline in use.
So what that we have the oil infrastructure? It was a hypothetical situation.
My point is that the feasibility of an energy technology shouldn't be discounted just because it would take a lot of investment in order to make practical.
Only the dyson cloud could be built without significant advances in material technology. Also you would have to solve the stability problem with spheres and rings.