Okay, I was working with the 98,000 figure. But if you take that figure, and go 98,000/24/365 you get 11. Which is why I said that it can be extrapolated that humanity uses 11TW of energy.
If you look at the article, it says that about 18GW of wind power can sequester 1 billion tons of CO2 per year. Humanity's entire CO2 output per year is, I believe, estimated to be 22 billion tons per year according to this website. http://www.undeerc.org/PCOR/region/sources.aspx
It can be extrapolated by the chart at the bottom, that world energy consumption is somewhere around 11TW.
I'm pretty sure that of those 11TW, no more than 3TW are from carbon neutral sources. So let's say 8TW.
Which essentially means that ~400GW of wind power can sequester the entire carbon dioxide generation of the world. This means that approximatley 1 watt of energy is expended to sequester the carbon generated from 20 watts of carbon based energy generation. Which means that roughly 5% of energy generated would be expended for sequestration. This seems like a good deal to me, if Antartica can somehow support 400GW of wind. Then again, I heard Texas could support a theoretical max of 2TW, so if this project were taken to it's ultimate conclusion, i'm sure it could be done. At current prices of wind turbines ($0.9M/mw) assuming it was even triple that price, the wind power to totally offset global greenhouse gas production would cost roughly 1.2T dollars if the wind turbines never stop, and $3.6T at ~30% duty factor. Phased in over 20 years, that would cost $360B/year, only about 3% of the global GDP. Not to mention the crap ton of jobs it would create.
China could probably be convinced to do this on their own. A carbon credit right now is about $10 if I remember correctly. It's equal to 1 ton of carbon dioxide. If this plant cluster sequesters 1 billion tons per year, then that's China banking 10 billion per year. That would surely be a very short payback time for China, and if the program were expanded significantly enough, then China could eventually keep reinvesting the money from carbon credits into the wind farms, to eventually balance out the entire carbon output of humanity.
It seems to do pretty well, seems easy to control, can fly with the loss of 1 engine and do emergency landing after loosing 2. It's available now in a kit for like $40k. Not too bad. I think it qualifies as an ultralight.
Yeah. If all you want is a file server, the raspberry pi might be able to hack it too, but those guys are even MORE under powered. Not too bad for a torrent box though, i'd imagine.
Well, on that HP the i5-3540 Ivybridge is a $150 CPU upgrade option. So, it would end up costing about as much as the mac mini at that point, so if you want a mac then you'd better go for that. But if you WANT a pc, then you can upgrade that computer with ivybridge and use it that way.
Most likely what'll happen to those macs, is there will be a cottage industry around popping them open and replacing the battery. That's what happened with the 'sealed' iPhones. Lipo packs are fairly moldable and I can pretty much guarantee you if there are enough people who want a new battery, someone will be able to crank one out and put it in cheaper than apple will do it for you.
Someone could probably design a slice battery that would latch onto the bottom, before that happens. It shouldn't be hard to design a slice battery that connects directly to the mag lock connector with a pass through, and make quite the handsome profit.
Windscale was a plutonium production reactor. Air cooled graphite moderated.
Basically tons of uranium caught fire and after all attempts to extinguish the fire failed for a long time and if John Cockcroft hadn't stubbornly insisted in putting in a filtration system for the ventilation system, there might've been alot more deaths. ALOT more. As somewhere close to 15 tons of uranium was burning for days in a fire so hot it could strip the carbon off liquid carbon dioxide pumped in to quench the flames, and would've probably just went up into a plume in the atmosphere.
But not many people remember the windscale fire. Not nearly on the same level as a power generation plant going (Thank you John Cockcroft), but still an accident.
People pay $600-800 in alot of countries to get an iPhone, that doesn't even have a file browser. (Which this phone has)
People can look at the phone, play with the phone, pay if they think it's worthit to them, and if they pay then good for them. They've got themselves a shiny new phone that looks attractive. If they don't pay, then can merely find another phone.
There's no ISO definition of what a 'smartphone' is. Upgradable by applications? This phone has it. (J2ME). Touch screen? this phone has it too. So I find it somewhat wrong to bash them for calling it a smartphone.
There are small issues with desalination, if it ever gets used for things as water intensive as agriculture care would have to be taken in the disposal of the brine effluent. However, it's possible that if we're doing huge flowrates, we could mine for things minerals in the sea, which would be kind of interesting.
For those who are interested in the actual statistics, it would seem that you're using about ~.45 gallons per kwh of energy generated. So the amount of water required to generate the energy necessary for hot water use in a house per day is roughly 30 gallons.
Still highly insignificant compared to say, the water required to produce meat. As meat animals consume large quantities of food, and that food has to be irrigated. And the conversion of crop energy into beef is not very efficient.
Sorry, I made an error. According to deutsche telecom the ISPs nowadays are only getting 100gbps per chanel which would equate to 6 terrabits per cable.
Which cuts my example bandwidth in 1/4th and only give 1.5mbps per line to 4 million people. You can see why the costs of laying cable to Australia's cities with their low population and farflung cities would be challenging.
Are you sure that their profit model isn't necessitated by having to lay thousands of miles of fiber just to reach about 15 million subscribers? If you're paying $100k/mile and you're trying to connect a city of 3 million (melbourne to perth?) about 2,000 miles away, you're paying 2 billion for a cable. If you're paying 5% interest on the cost of laying that cable you're paying 100 million a year in interest JUST ON THE CABLE. This doesn't include all of the fiber you need to lay for the last mile, equipment needed to get it all up and running, support costs, etc...
That's assuming that one cable can service 4 million people. Currently a fiber optic cable can carry about 24 terrabits, but split between 4 million people that's only a functional 6 megabits per person. Thus you probably want the caps in place to limit people from choking up your 2 billion dollar cable that has to be amoratized by only 3 million subscribers.
Actually, i'm sure that not only did Microsoft see it coming, they took preventative measures. Mainly in the form of windows 8.
You're also discounting corporate sales. A corporation is never going to give up their desktop to get their employee a tablet to do spreadsheets. It's simply not feasable. They need software that's designed to be used for 8 hours a day and give their workers maximum productivity. The last part is why it may be more profitable to give their employee something more usable, because the $x they save on the tablet won't be worth the drop in productivity versus the salary of the emloyee.
Microsoft makes almost as much on the sale of an office licence or a windows liscence as most android makers do on an entire headset, and maybe even apple (depending on the iPhone, and the software microsoft is selling).
Microsoft isn't going anywhere yet. If they would just quit loosing billions of money on bing, they'd be in the green and happy.
Barbados ~104% Ireland ~108% Portugal ~108% Singapore ~118% Italy ~120% Jamaica ~126% Antigua and Barbuda ~130% Iceland ~130% Greece ~165% Saint Kitts and Nevis ~200% Japan ~208% and Zimbabwe ~230%
My mistake, and apologies. In that case, I guess you could say American manufacturing is largely centered around heavy equipment, highly engineered electronic components, aerospace, metals (steel and the like, of which America still has a good chunk of world manufacture) and generally things that wouldn't have a sticker on them. I know that caterpillar has almost half of it's manufacturing plants still in the USA. Things like that.
Generally speaking assembly isn't a big money maker and I imagine alot of countries try to move away from that as quickly as possible. Owning the design makes you much more money than fabbing the parts, which is what i'd imagine the main reason for our manufacturing decline is.
That being said, the western world is still a powerhouse of design and cutting edge technology. Even if third world nations become manufacturing powerhouses, they're still going to need stuff to manufacture, sure China maybe a giant in manufacturing but alot of the big ticket stuff they put into the higher quality products they build are still designed over here, and that's where a lion's share of the money is, which is why the first world hasn't gone bankrupt due to horribly expensive labor yet. We earn our keep on the global scale, designing stuff people still need, and want to buy.
Aren't alot of the chips in the computers we use fabbed in the USA, atleast? Big ticket items, for sure. How about cars? The united states manufactures crap tons of cars. Harley's are probably made in the USA, too. By necessity, you're house was made in the USA. All Boeing jets are made in the USA, but it's not practical to own them. While probably not 'manufactured' i'm willing to say that a good deal of the food you eat was probably processed in the USA just due to logistical reasons, and packaged here.
I've heard that very little of total spending of the american consumer actually goes to chinese goods manufacturing costs.
Slashdot Mirror
Okay, I was working with the 98,000 figure. But if you take that figure, and go 98,000/24/365 you get 11. Which is why I said that it can be extrapolated that humanity uses 11TW of energy.
If you look at the article, it says that about 18GW of wind power can sequester 1 billion tons of CO2 per year. Humanity's entire CO2 output per year is, I believe, estimated to be 22 billion tons per year according to this website.
http://www.undeerc.org/PCOR/region/sources.aspx
however, under the wikipedia article on world energy use
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_energy_consumption
It can be extrapolated by the chart at the bottom, that world energy consumption is somewhere around 11TW.
I'm pretty sure that of those 11TW, no more than 3TW are from carbon neutral sources. So let's say 8TW.
Which essentially means that ~400GW of wind power can sequester the entire carbon dioxide generation of the world. This means that approximatley 1 watt of energy is expended to sequester the carbon generated from 20 watts of carbon based energy generation. Which means that roughly 5% of energy generated would be expended for sequestration. This seems like a good deal to me, if Antartica can somehow support 400GW of wind. Then again, I heard Texas could support a theoretical max of 2TW, so if this project were taken to it's ultimate conclusion, i'm sure it could be done. At current prices of wind turbines ($0.9M/mw) assuming it was even triple that price, the wind power to totally offset global greenhouse gas production would cost roughly 1.2T dollars if the wind turbines never stop, and $3.6T at ~30% duty factor. Phased in over 20 years, that would cost $360B/year, only about 3% of the global GDP. Not to mention the crap ton of jobs it would create.
China could probably be convinced to do this on their own. A carbon credit right now is about $10 if I remember correctly. It's equal to 1 ton of carbon dioxide. If this plant cluster sequesters 1 billion tons per year, then that's China banking 10 billion per year. That would surely be a very short payback time for China, and if the program were expanded significantly enough, then China could eventually keep reinvesting the money from carbon credits into the wind farms, to eventually balance out the entire carbon output of humanity.
The only multi rotor setup I followed was the Gen H4 helicopter
http://www.youtube.com/user/genh4?feature=results_main
It seems to do pretty well, seems easy to control, can fly with the loss of 1 engine and do emergency landing after loosing 2. It's available now in a kit for like $40k. Not too bad. I think it qualifies as an ultralight.
Yeah. If all you want is a file server, the raspberry pi might be able to hack it too, but those guys are even MORE under powered. Not too bad for a torrent box though, i'd imagine.
Well, on that HP the i5-3540 Ivybridge is a $150 CPU upgrade option. So, it would end up costing about as much as the mac mini at that point, so if you want a mac then you'd better go for that. But if you WANT a pc, then you can upgrade that computer with ivybridge and use it that way.
Most likely what'll happen to those macs, is there will be a cottage industry around popping them open and replacing the battery. That's what happened with the 'sealed' iPhones. Lipo packs are fairly moldable and I can pretty much guarantee you if there are enough people who want a new battery, someone will be able to crank one out and put it in cheaper than apple will do it for you.
Anand said the same thing. The thing is, alot of these things are designed for businesses.
How about this one?
http://www.shopping.hp.com/en_US/home-office/-/products/Desktops/HP-Pavilion-Slimline/B3F71AV?HP-Pavilion-Slimline-s5-1310t-Desktop-PC
That one is 3.3GHz dual core i3, 4GB of RAM, free upgrade to a 1TB HD, DVD burner, and costs $450
http://www.anandtech.com/show/6162/lenovo-thinkcentre-m92-system-review-pintsized-power
Probably same size as the mac mini, 4GB of RAM 5400RPM hard drive 2x2.9GHz procs turbo up to 3.6
No wireless
I assume this company is going to be sued off their asses, then?
http://www.hypershop.com/HyperJuice-External-Battery-for-MacBook-iPad-iPhone-USB-s/91.htm
Someone could probably design a slice battery that would latch onto the bottom, before that happens. It shouldn't be hard to design a slice battery that connects directly to the mag lock connector with a pass through, and make quite the handsome profit.
One more had to be buried forever.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windscale_fire
Windscale was a plutonium production reactor. Air cooled graphite moderated.
Basically tons of uranium caught fire and after all attempts to extinguish the fire failed for a long time and if John Cockcroft hadn't stubbornly insisted in putting in a filtration system for the ventilation system, there might've been alot more deaths. ALOT more. As somewhere close to 15 tons of uranium was burning for days in a fire so hot it could strip the carbon off liquid carbon dioxide pumped in to quench the flames, and would've probably just went up into a plume in the atmosphere.
But not many people remember the windscale fire. Not nearly on the same level as a power generation plant going (Thank you John Cockcroft), but still an accident.
People pay $600-800 in alot of countries to get an iPhone, that doesn't even have a file browser. (Which this phone has)
People can look at the phone, play with the phone, pay if they think it's worthit to them, and if they pay then good for them. They've got themselves a shiny new phone that looks attractive. If they don't pay, then can merely find another phone.
There's no ISO definition of what a 'smartphone' is. Upgradable by applications? This phone has it. (J2ME). Touch screen? this phone has it too. So I find it somewhat wrong to bash them for calling it a smartphone.
There are small issues with desalination, if it ever gets used for things as water intensive as agriculture care would have to be taken in the disposal of the brine effluent. However, it's possible that if we're doing huge flowrates, we could mine for things minerals in the sea, which would be kind of interesting.
Sorry, link to the PDF with the water per kwh generated statistic.
http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy04osti/33905.pdf
For those who are interested in the actual statistics, it would seem that you're using about ~.45 gallons per kwh of energy generated. So the amount of water required to generate the energy necessary for hot water use in a house per day is roughly 30 gallons.
Still highly insignificant compared to say, the water required to produce meat. As meat animals consume large quantities of food, and that food has to be irrigated. And the conversion of crop energy into beef is not very efficient.
Also forgot to carry the 0. 200 million for that cable. I fail at maths. That would be the cost for 10 cables. Sorry.
Sorry, I made an error. According to deutsche telecom the ISPs nowadays are only getting 100gbps per chanel which would equate to 6 terrabits per cable.
http://www.ispreview.co.uk/index.php/2012/03/deutsche-telekom-break-record-with-512gbps-data-speed-via-fibre-optic-cable.html
Which cuts my example bandwidth in 1/4th and only give 1.5mbps per line to 4 million people. You can see why the costs of laying cable to Australia's cities with their low population and farflung cities would be challenging.
Are you sure that their profit model isn't necessitated by having to lay thousands of miles of fiber just to reach about 15 million subscribers? If you're paying $100k/mile and you're trying to connect a city of 3 million (melbourne to perth?) about 2,000 miles away, you're paying 2 billion for a cable. If you're paying 5% interest on the cost of laying that cable you're paying 100 million a year in interest JUST ON THE CABLE. This doesn't include all of the fiber you need to lay for the last mile, equipment needed to get it all up and running, support costs, etc...
That's assuming that one cable can service 4 million people. Currently a fiber optic cable can carry about 24 terrabits, but split between 4 million people that's only a functional 6 megabits per person. Thus you probably want the caps in place to limit people from choking up your 2 billion dollar cable that has to be amoratized by only 3 million subscribers.
Actually, i'm sure that not only did Microsoft see it coming, they took preventative measures. Mainly in the form of windows 8.
You're also discounting corporate sales. A corporation is never going to give up their desktop to get their employee a tablet to do spreadsheets. It's simply not feasable. They need software that's designed to be used for 8 hours a day and give their workers maximum productivity. The last part is why it may be more profitable to give their employee something more usable, because the $x they save on the tablet won't be worth the drop in productivity versus the salary of the emloyee.
Microsoft makes almost as much on the sale of an office licence or a windows liscence as most android makers do on an entire headset, and maybe even apple (depending on the iPhone, and the software microsoft is selling).
Microsoft isn't going anywhere yet. If they would just quit loosing billions of money on bing, they'd be in the green and happy.
The design for the reactor in question was actually American.
Not even close. America's sitting around 103%, above us there is
according wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_public_debt (CIA/Eurostat)
Barbados ~104%
Ireland ~108%
Portugal ~108%
Singapore ~118%
Italy ~120%
Jamaica ~126%
Antigua and Barbuda ~130%
Iceland ~130%
Greece ~165%
Saint Kitts and Nevis ~200%
Japan ~208%
and Zimbabwe ~230%
Actually Japanese people probably most of all industrialized nations seem to want to work after retirement.
http://longevity.ilcjapan.org/f_issues/0602.html
Give this a read. might surprise you on the issue of retirement.
My mistake, and apologies. In that case, I guess you could say American manufacturing is largely centered around heavy equipment, highly engineered electronic components, aerospace, metals (steel and the like, of which America still has a good chunk of world manufacture) and generally things that wouldn't have a sticker on them. I know that caterpillar has almost half of it's manufacturing plants still in the USA. Things like that.
Generally speaking assembly isn't a big money maker and I imagine alot of countries try to move away from that as quickly as possible. Owning the design makes you much more money than fabbing the parts, which is what i'd imagine the main reason for our manufacturing decline is.
That being said, the western world is still a powerhouse of design and cutting edge technology. Even if third world nations become manufacturing powerhouses, they're still going to need stuff to manufacture, sure China maybe a giant in manufacturing but alot of the big ticket stuff they put into the higher quality products they build are still designed over here, and that's where a lion's share of the money is, which is why the first world hasn't gone bankrupt due to horribly expensive labor yet. We earn our keep on the global scale, designing stuff people still need, and want to buy.
Aren't alot of the chips in the computers we use fabbed in the USA, atleast? Big ticket items, for sure. How about cars? The united states manufactures crap tons of cars. Harley's are probably made in the USA, too. By necessity, you're house was made in the USA. All Boeing jets are made in the USA, but it's not practical to own them. While probably not 'manufactured' i'm willing to say that a good deal of the food you eat was probably processed in the USA just due to logistical reasons, and packaged here.
I've heard that very little of total spending of the american consumer actually goes to chinese goods manufacturing costs.