[x] You price the product based on what people will pay, regardless of ability, that have enough of them paying to net the greatest profit.
That means that you don't sell at a loss* regardless. Malaysia, while poorer, is also closer to the production facilities(china), doesn't have the huge taxes of Europe, or the moderate ones of the USA. You can still make _some_ money, so why not?
*in many cases, when they're selling at a loss it's either counting as advertising(more bought later), or charity(tax deductible and they get to make nice ads about how nice they are).
One of the other posters also mentioned distributerships - many get exclusive licenses for this or that country, thus becoming a local monopoly for that particular piece of software, and free to proceed to use the thumbscrews.
Then again, from what I've read, just about everything is more expensive there. You have to pay more for a television, stereo, whatever. Even if it's just a computer with the voltage setting flipped to 240 instead of 120.
For example, an apple iPod classic 80GB black - $228.54 in the USA, £140.97 in the UK. Using the current exchange rate, that's $280 US. $50 difference, about 20%. Less than the software, but it might be indicative.
I'd also blame support costs - Europe has some very nice consumer support laws, but I believe it'd be foolish to assume that those don't drive up costs. Extra labor restrictions and the resulting costs, extra taxes, etc...
UK/Europe can be an expensive place to do business - and like all businesses, they simply pass the costs along.
I don't think the credits are important at all. If you can prove you know the subject, there is no need to (re)do a course on that subject. Of course, often coursed will not be completely compatible and a solution has to be made to make up for the difference. That's the way it works here in the Netherlands.
I wasn't getting into other options like CLEPs* - I have college credit for classes I've never taken. I think credits ARE important, as you, by some method, have demonstrated a certain amount of learning/knowledge/proficiency in a subject. Whether that be by class or test, either way is a credit.
Besides, although children have to choose at an early age between different educational tracks, it is always possible to change tracks one way or another by switching tracks but not advancing a year, or to start studying in another track after graduation.
In the USA there's a considerable stigma attached to not advancing a year - it's known as 'being held back', 'failing a grade'. It's pretty much synonymous with failure. So I don't see that particular option ever being popular without a massive change in perception. Still - there's quite a lot of dead time in the standard US grade school system, most kids have all summer off for example. So if a student shows enough promise later on to move up, he or she might take a summer school class to catch up for the next year. Or there's tuturing, summer work on their own, parental help.
Personally, I got the 'sink or swim' treatment in moving to advanced classes after suffering for a while in the mississippi school system(notoriously bad back in my day). It took me a year to go from Nebraska wanting to hold me back a year to going into the advanced classes, eventually AP**.
Of course, I was considered an odd one - while I was taking every science class I could get into, I also wanted to take shop classes - actually WORK with the scientific principals I was studying.
*College-Level Examination Program **Advanced Placement, essentially college classes in high school.
The price-anderson act ensures that the only time that an accident starts being on the fed's dime that the incident has to be chernobyl level - which is pretty unlikely seeing as how all reactors are pre-entombed in secondary containment vessels(the big concrete domes).
Oddly enough, you get those incidents more in government run reactors than the commercially run reactors in the USA.
Like I said, a commercial company will look at risk management - small leaks cost them money. If it costs less to remediate that risk than than what the risk would cost if it manifests * the chance of it happening, they'll spend the money. It's good business.
This just makes no sense to me. Children simply do not work this way. You can't take a child who is 8 years old and say, this child is college material. Many lackluster children mature into really smart people, and many really smart children end up being totally unsuitable for college.
Well, maybe I need to make the point differently. They don't say this 8 year old is going to college. What they do is start assessing the kid's ability to learn various materials. 8 would be, on average, 3rd grade. Is he(or she) good enough to be in 'advanced math', or slow and needing to be in 'basic math'? Advanced/regular/basic english(or other language), etc...
Each year the kid's position is considered and adjusted when appropriate.
It's not poor rulemaking, it's a fundamental lack of flexibility in the system. There's no concept of "credits". Your courses are laid out for the entire program ahead of time. You may have certain electives, but otherwise it's totally rigid. You can't skip calculus because you've already taken it and instead take advanced calculus. If you have a really flexible department you may be able to skip calculus and take nothing, but this just gives you more free time, it doesn't accelerate your progress.
Then they need to fix the system. I didn't know the french system was that constrained, I figured it was like the US system in many aspects, in that a degree course is built out of blocks of classes.
Precisely, and in many countries around the world it's simply not a realistic option. If you realize at 40, 30, or even at 20 that you no longer wish to be an electrician then you'll have vastly more difficulty changing to a different career than you generally will in the US.
Yes, many areas still have the ideas of the guilds - kids often end up in their parent's careers. And I wasn't necessarily thinking about the electrician changing careers, more like modifying it. Getting his business degree and opening up an electrician contracting shop, for example.
but I don't want to be the one to tell mom and dad that Johnny might make a better auto mechanic than Brain Surgeon.
They do it all the time in Germany. Of course, our helicopter parents aren't always realistic.
A good auto mechanic can earn quite a bit of money today - partially because so many schools no longer have the practical engineering programs for things like engine repair. Heck, today we have plumbers and electricians making more money than college graduates. Is a degree really helping that much? Especially when it's coming to be that the first year or two of college is stuff that used to be covered in HS?
Of course, I also say at times that we need to throttle back the loan programs a bit - colleges and universities seem to have forgotten how to teach classes while staying in a reasonable budget. Much like the housing market, easy access to credit has resulted in a spike in prices.
Let's say you're 18, on the vocational track of your high school, and suddenly you decide that you're actually pretty smart and you want a white-collar job and you want to go to university. Guess what? You are screwed! Forget about it. You already made that choice back when you were 16. There is no mind-changing!
Well, actually, you can, it's just tougher. If you're good, you'll be able to leverage your vocational training to become a sort of middleman between the vocational types and the college types.
On the other hand, is it fair to run even vocational oriented students through what ends up being a half-assed college prep course? It ends up serving no one well. To better serve 10% of the students you screw over the other 90%? That reeks of 'No child left behind'. One of the problems with that program is that the smart, dedicated kids end up being ignored in order to raise the bottom 10% those critical few points.
In countries with this sort of education, the split often starts in elementary school - students that excel move up towards the college program, students that perform marginally move down towards the vocational aspects. By the time they reach high school age they're pretty much placed, with the knowledge, consultation, and consent of both the parents and the academic facility.
As for the france thing with math - that's just poor rulemaking. Credits for a math course should be credits for the math course.
Further education should always be an option - that electrician can go in and get his masters if he wants. Maybe he's ready for it at 40 when he wasn't at 20.
Your question reads a bit off to me. I'm assuming you're asking about commercial(IE not government) power companies built nuclear plants? Of course, 'build their own' - of course not, they generally contract construction for that sort of stuff out. Doesn't matter whether it's a nuclear plant, coal, dam, solar, etc...
Also, there's normally a certain amount of shell gaming going on, and over the 40+ year lifespan of a plant, ownership will normally change hands.
Thus my point - when a plant opens, there are certain fees within the cost of the electricity - such as the federally mandated fee for disposal of the waste, and a fee to go to an account to pay for the eventual decommisioning of the plant. Other than that, a new plant would pay for itself on the basis of electricity sold on market on the remainder. Right not payback is estimated at 3-10 years, depending upon actual construction costs and interest rates.
Still... There's Joseph M. Farley, Southern Nuclear Operating Company in Alabama. I won't count Browns Ferry, as it's owned by TVA, a federally owned company. Diablo Canyon - Pacific Gas & Electric. San Onofre - 'Various Owners' Millstone - Dominion Resources, Inc.
Now that I've put far more time into this, and only gotten up to Connecticut, the rest is up to you.
Right now we've had a plant reactivation last year, and are looking at a number of new reactors installed on existing plant sites.
Well, just like the smaller explosive, yes a blanket would work. The only thing is that while a liter or so of water works for a stick of C4, you're generally looking at a couple meters of metal to direct a nuke.
Given the masses involved, using local materials would probably be better.
You also have to realize that we're also not really needing to direct the nuke, more figure out ways to optimize the thrust.
I figure it's cheaper to ship multiple nukes and some drilling supplies than enough earth mass to tamp the warheads for optimal thrust.
Heck, depending on the composition of the asteroid, a good casing and a strong impact might be enough. We already have bunker busters capable of busting through 20 stories of reinforced concrete. From what I've read, most asteroids aren't going to be that well held together.
Actually, due to flash vaporization from radiation, even a surface nuke would provide SOME thrust, but burying it would allow nearly 100% of the nuke's thrust to be used for thrust, vs 10% or so for a stand-off explosion.
The simply answer is that the physics are already known, and it all depends on how far in the future the impact is before we detect it. Given a century just about anything would work. Given less than a year, almost nothing would.
Given a couple decades, yes, there are a number of non-nuclear options. A nice high impulse drive, perhaps a number of them, set into the surface of the asteroid. They thrust in the proper direction over a long period of time, and we end up being able to put the asteroid pretty much where ever we want it.
In a shorter time frame or larger asteroid, nukes might end up being the best choice. Of course, for best propulsion, like in the horrible movie, burying it might be the best option - that allows part of the mass of the asteroid to be used to propel the asteroid in the opposite direction. The ejecta, even though some is almost guaranteed to hit the earth, is okay because it'll overwhelmingly burn up in the atmosphere.
like health problems - oh, kinda like what happens if you live 'close' to a coal plant? Such as Asthma, lung cancer, etc... waste disposal - unlike the stuff that coal plants simply let go up the stack? building & demolishing costs - that are already built into the price of the electricity? Oh, and Wind/solar are still far more expensive to build per kwh, and 'clean' coal is also coming out more expensive.
They're spending too much effort on handling other vehicles for it to NOT be designed to handle actual human drivers as well.
As for the rest - well, who says a robovehicle can't haul a boat? Heck, I'd expect SEMIS to be one of the first recipients of such a system - drivers are expensive. So you could still get a robo-Uhaul.
Look at online shopping, and how large it's become. While 'FREE SHIPPING!' is a frequent selling point, I often pay the $5-20 it costs to have something delivered without hassle.
So, look at the continued operation of Newegg, Amazon, Schwanns, all the furniture/appliance places, it's not that big of a deal.
Let's look at a city, in a high fuel cost enviroment. Having a vehicle, between insurance, maintenance, loan payments(or capital cost), parking expenses, and let's not forget fuel might cost upwards of $1000/month. Let's say using various alternate travel methods such as walking, subways, taxis, busses and such only cost $250. That's $750 a month that can go towards paying delivery costs. Figure on rates as cheap as UPS/Fedex ground - that might be a $5-20 fee for most packages - it's not like you're having to ship the stuff across the country.
Yes, I'm one of those that view my vehicle as mostly transportation from spot A to B. No, I don't think they'll be FORCING you into one. On the other hand, given that you mentioned motorcycle riding - you do realize that a robocar is more likely to spot and avoid you than a random cell-phone talking makup applying soccer mom in a SUV, right?
If it wasn't for the pain of trying to arrange a trip on the bus and the extra time involved, I'd rather just read a book on the way to the mall or work or wherever.
1: 'Minor exposure' != death, or even necessarily sickness 2: So major nuclear plants are going to be built? Cool!;) 2(serious): It's got a 60 year track record of being safer than Coal and hydro, per kwh produced. Have you ever looked at the figures for deaths caused by coal power pollution? It's not pretty. 3: Sure there has. All sorts of them in the USA. They just haven't been done without government oversight, and frequently funding.
NEVER will a nuclear power plant be cost-ompetitive with wind/solar+hydrogen storage.
Ah, you've never studied economics apparently. Solar tends to run more than 10X per kwh than a nuclear plant, which for the last decade has been coming out slightly cheaper than coal, on average. Wind is coming down, cost is down to about the same per watt of capacity - but has a power production factor of about a third of a nuke plant. In a good spot, a wind turbine will produce about 30% of it's rated max capacity. A nuclear plant will produce 90%.
As for hydrogen storage, you need to be aware that the biggest source of hydrogen is cracking natural gas for it. The only serious proposed method for producing hydrogen from electrolosys in an industrial fashion is to use a nuclear power plant for the free heat, combined with a catalyst and a bit of electricity.
You would have me taking you more seriously if you'd mentioned pumped storage, flywheels, or even compressed air instead. I've seen serious proposals for them.
You can say the same about ANY industry - I'm not suggesting getting rid of the DOE, and liability concerns will tend to keep things in hand.
Look at it this way - an unsafe plant is a liability. A: A plant that's had an accident isn't producing power - no power = no electricity to sell = no money. No money BAD B: A plant that's had an accident has liability problems, especially if there's a radiation release. Liability = suits = lost money. Lost money BAD
I do the vent indoors thing as well. the nylon stocking acts as a secondary filter, like the HEPA ones on many vacuums today. The lint filter is only a coarse mesh - it doesn't catch anywhere near everything.
That's not exactly what I was describing. The actual heat exchanger is the closest. A dry has a input and a output airstream, cool dry air is drawn in from the house and heated then the hot (very) dry air is cycled through the clothing, becoming moist hot air that is normally expelled outside.
What I propose instead is to put a heat pump system - think window AC unit or dehumidifier, into the mix. It pulls the energy in a very active fashion from the expelled air, putting it in the incoming air.
Probably increase the cost of a dryer by ~$300 - the average cost for many portable/window AC units, and provide 10,000-15,000 BTUs of heat when in operation. Remember, we're talking about moving heat from hot to cold - this can be done passively, but that takes a lot of space. AC units can move heat very efficiently this way. Assuming you go with a 10k BTU system, you'd be replacing a 12 amp, 240V heater that would use ~3kwh for each hour of operation with a 6 amp, 120V device that would use less than 1 kwh. Figure a 4 to 1 power reduction(to be generous), that's 3 kwh saved per hour. In my area, that'd be $.30. Figure heavy family use at 1 hour a day, that'd be $110 a year. Payoff: 3-4 years. Not bad. Much higher for a business like a laundrymat. For a laundry - don't forget the savings in AC.
This is part of the problem I can see with it. Cops, unintentional or not, will accidentally dial in the higher settings when they really want to use a non-lethal round.
On the flipside, a good part of the reason crooks feared cops was getting lethally shot. Take that away and you can have issues.
That's exactly how my last two dryers have worked; they use cold water to cool down the back plate, which causes condensation that is pumped out. No hot air exhaust at all, and they use less than a quarter as much electricity as a regular dryer. I'm amazed that consumers here in the US still buy the other kind, and seem to be unaware of the more efficient type.
Doesn't sound exactly like I'm talking about. The only condensate I'm talking about would be from the cooled hot air - as cool air can't hold as much moisture as hot air. The heat pulled from the hot air is moved over to the input side, giving you ~2-4 units of heat per unit of electricity used. As a result of the cooled moist air, you'll get substantial amounts of condensate, thus the pump to the drain. Probably more expensive than your version, but probably faster. Use a bit more electricity, but no water.
As for not having heard of them, you have to remember we're the land of cheap energy, to include electricity, and to install the type you're talking about would require a major water input and a drain. We're also, in many ways, shorter on water than we are on electricity.
For air conditioning, are you talking about cars, window, or central? Cars do seem to pull from outside by default, mostly because the small space involved means most people want fresh air. Window AC units seem to default to conditioning air from the inside, and I've never seen a central unit that doesn't pull from inside. You have to remember that a AC unit is going to have TWO radiators - a cold side and a hot side. Just because it's blowing hot air from the unit outside doesn't mean that the air came from inside.
Auto sensing seems to be a good idea. Heck, I've had ideas about dumping the heat into waste water, or if you live in an area with plentiful cheap water - dump the heat into that.
The computer stuff I know about. I have power saving options set - no screen saver, straight to shut off the monitor.
I tend to prefer a cooperative, which is technically private. Still, I have nothing against a truly privately run nuclear plant as long as they're operating safely.
It's not like they're the only source of power, so they can't just increase prices. They have to be competitive.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, I'd go on a modification:
[x] You price the product based on what people will pay, regardless of ability, that have enough of them paying to net the greatest profit.
That means that you don't sell at a loss* regardless. Malaysia, while poorer, is also closer to the production facilities(china), doesn't have the huge taxes of Europe, or the moderate ones of the USA. You can still make _some_ money, so why not?
*in many cases, when they're selling at a loss it's either counting as advertising(more bought later), or charity(tax deductible and they get to make nice ads about how nice they are).
One of the other posters also mentioned distributerships - many get exclusive licenses for this or that country, thus becoming a local monopoly for that particular piece of software, and free to proceed to use the thumbscrews.
Then again, from what I've read, just about everything is more expensive there. You have to pay more for a television, stereo, whatever. Even if it's just a computer with the voltage setting flipped to 240 instead of 120.
For example, an apple iPod classic 80GB black - $228.54 in the USA, £140.97 in the UK. Using the current exchange rate, that's $280 US. $50 difference, about 20%. Less than the software, but it might be indicative.
I'd also blame support costs - Europe has some very nice consumer support laws, but I believe it'd be foolish to assume that those don't drive up costs. Extra labor restrictions and the resulting costs, extra taxes, etc...
UK/Europe can be an expensive place to do business - and like all businesses, they simply pass the costs along.
I don't think the credits are important at all. If you can prove you know the subject, there is no need to (re)do a course on that subject. Of course, often coursed will not be completely compatible and a solution has to be made to make up for the difference. That's the way it works here in the Netherlands.
I wasn't getting into other options like CLEPs* - I have college credit for classes I've never taken. I think credits ARE important, as you, by some method, have demonstrated a certain amount of learning/knowledge/proficiency in a subject. Whether that be by class or test, either way is a credit.
Besides, although children have to choose at an early age between different educational tracks, it is always possible to change tracks one way or another by switching tracks but not advancing a year, or to start studying in another track after graduation.
In the USA there's a considerable stigma attached to not advancing a year - it's known as 'being held back', 'failing a grade'. It's pretty much synonymous with failure. So I don't see that particular option ever being popular without a massive change in perception. Still - there's quite a lot of dead time in the standard US grade school system, most kids have all summer off for example. So if a student shows enough promise later on to move up, he or she might take a summer school class to catch up for the next year. Or there's tuturing, summer work on their own, parental help.
Personally, I got the 'sink or swim' treatment in moving to advanced classes after suffering for a while in the mississippi school system(notoriously bad back in my day). It took me a year to go from Nebraska wanting to hold me back a year to going into the advanced classes, eventually AP**.
Of course, I was considered an odd one - while I was taking every science class I could get into, I also wanted to take shop classes - actually WORK with the scientific principals I was studying.
*College-Level Examination Program
**Advanced Placement, essentially college classes in high school.
The price-anderson act ensures that the only time that an accident starts being on the fed's dime that the incident has to be chernobyl level - which is pretty unlikely seeing as how all reactors are pre-entombed in secondary containment vessels(the big concrete domes).
Oddly enough, you get those incidents more in government run reactors than the commercially run reactors in the USA.
Like I said, a commercial company will look at risk management - small leaks cost them money. If it costs less to remediate that risk than than what the risk would cost if it manifests * the chance of it happening, they'll spend the money. It's good business.
Well, maybe I need to make the point differently. They don't say this 8 year old is going to college. What they do is start assessing the kid's ability to learn various materials. 8 would be, on average, 3rd grade. Is he(or she) good enough to be in 'advanced math', or slow and needing to be in 'basic math'? Advanced/regular/basic english(or other language), etc...
Each year the kid's position is considered and adjusted when appropriate.
Then they need to fix the system. I didn't know the french system was that constrained, I figured it was like the US system in many aspects, in that a degree course is built out of blocks of classes.
Precisely, and in many countries around the world it's simply not a realistic option. If you realize at 40, 30, or even at 20 that you no longer wish to be an electrician then you'll have vastly more difficulty changing to a different career than you generally will in the US.
Yes, many areas still have the ideas of the guilds - kids often end up in their parent's careers. And I wasn't necessarily thinking about the electrician changing careers, more like modifying it. Getting his business degree and opening up an electrician contracting shop, for example.
but I don't want to be the one to tell mom and dad that Johnny might make a better auto mechanic than Brain Surgeon.
They do it all the time in Germany. Of course, our helicopter parents aren't always realistic.
A good auto mechanic can earn quite a bit of money today - partially because so many schools no longer have the practical engineering programs for things like engine repair. Heck, today we have plumbers and electricians making more money than college graduates. Is a degree really helping that much? Especially when it's coming to be that the first year or two of college is stuff that used to be covered in HS?
Of course, I also say at times that we need to throttle back the loan programs a bit - colleges and universities seem to have forgotten how to teach classes while staying in a reasonable budget. Much like the housing market, easy access to credit has resulted in a spike in prices.
Let's say you're 18, on the vocational track of your high school, and suddenly you decide that you're actually pretty smart and you want a white-collar job and you want to go to university. Guess what? You are screwed! Forget about it. You already made that choice back when you were 16. There is no mind-changing!
Well, actually, you can, it's just tougher. If you're good, you'll be able to leverage your vocational training to become a sort of middleman between the vocational types and the college types.
On the other hand, is it fair to run even vocational oriented students through what ends up being a half-assed college prep course? It ends up serving no one well. To better serve 10% of the students you screw over the other 90%? That reeks of 'No child left behind'. One of the problems with that program is that the smart, dedicated kids end up being ignored in order to raise the bottom 10% those critical few points.
In countries with this sort of education, the split often starts in elementary school - students that excel move up towards the college program, students that perform marginally move down towards the vocational aspects. By the time they reach high school age they're pretty much placed, with the knowledge, consultation, and consent of both the parents and the academic facility.
As for the france thing with math - that's just poor rulemaking. Credits for a math course should be credits for the math course.
Further education should always be an option - that electrician can go in and get his masters if he wants. Maybe he's ready for it at 40 when he wasn't at 20.
Your question reads a bit off to me. I'm assuming you're asking about commercial(IE not government) power companies built nuclear plants? Of course, 'build their own' - of course not, they generally contract construction for that sort of stuff out. Doesn't matter whether it's a nuclear plant, coal, dam, solar, etc...
Also, there's normally a certain amount of shell gaming going on, and over the 40+ year lifespan of a plant, ownership will normally change hands.
Thus my point - when a plant opens, there are certain fees within the cost of the electricity - such as the federally mandated fee for disposal of the waste, and a fee to go to an account to pay for the eventual decommisioning of the plant. Other than that, a new plant would pay for itself on the basis of electricity sold on market on the remainder. Right not payback is estimated at 3-10 years, depending upon actual construction costs and interest rates.
Still...
There's Joseph M. Farley, Southern Nuclear Operating Company in Alabama. I won't count Browns Ferry, as it's owned by TVA, a federally owned company.
Diablo Canyon - Pacific Gas & Electric.
San Onofre - 'Various Owners'
Millstone - Dominion Resources, Inc.
Now that I've put far more time into this, and only gotten up to Connecticut, the rest is up to you.
Right now we've had a plant reactivation last year, and are looking at a number of new reactors installed on existing plant sites.
Well, just like the smaller explosive, yes a blanket would work. The only thing is that while a liter or so of water works for a stick of C4, you're generally looking at a couple meters of metal to direct a nuke.
Given the masses involved, using local materials would probably be better.
You also have to realize that we're also not really needing to direct the nuke, more figure out ways to optimize the thrust.
I figure it's cheaper to ship multiple nukes and some drilling supplies than enough earth mass to tamp the warheads for optimal thrust.
Heck, depending on the composition of the asteroid, a good casing and a strong impact might be enough. We already have bunker busters capable of busting through 20 stories of reinforced concrete. From what I've read, most asteroids aren't going to be that well held together.
Actually, due to flash vaporization from radiation, even a surface nuke would provide SOME thrust, but burying it would allow nearly 100% of the nuke's thrust to be used for thrust, vs 10% or so for a stand-off explosion.
The simply answer is that the physics are already known, and it all depends on how far in the future the impact is before we detect it. Given a century just about anything would work. Given less than a year, almost nothing would.
Given a couple decades, yes, there are a number of non-nuclear options. A nice high impulse drive, perhaps a number of them, set into the surface of the asteroid. They thrust in the proper direction over a long period of time, and we end up being able to put the asteroid pretty much where ever we want it.
In a shorter time frame or larger asteroid, nukes might end up being the best choice. Of course, for best propulsion, like in the horrible movie, burying it might be the best option - that allows part of the mass of the asteroid to be used to propel the asteroid in the opposite direction. The ejecta, even though some is almost guaranteed to hit the earth, is okay because it'll overwhelmingly burn up in the atmosphere.
like health problems - oh, kinda like what happens if you live 'close' to a coal plant? Such as Asthma, lung cancer, etc...
waste disposal - unlike the stuff that coal plants simply let go up the stack?
building & demolishing costs - that are already built into the price of the electricity? Oh, and Wind/solar are still far more expensive to build per kwh, and 'clean' coal is also coming out more expensive.
They're spending too much effort on handling other vehicles for it to NOT be designed to handle actual human drivers as well.
As for the rest - well, who says a robovehicle can't haul a boat? Heck, I'd expect SEMIS to be one of the first recipients of such a system - drivers are expensive. So you could still get a robo-Uhaul.
Look at online shopping, and how large it's become. While 'FREE SHIPPING!' is a frequent selling point, I often pay the $5-20 it costs to have something delivered without hassle.
So, look at the continued operation of Newegg, Amazon, Schwanns, all the furniture/appliance places, it's not that big of a deal.
Let's look at a city, in a high fuel cost enviroment. Having a vehicle, between insurance, maintenance, loan payments(or capital cost), parking expenses, and let's not forget fuel might cost upwards of $1000/month. Let's say using various alternate travel methods such as walking, subways, taxis, busses and such only cost $250. That's $750 a month that can go towards paying delivery costs. Figure on rates as cheap as UPS/Fedex ground - that might be a $5-20 fee for most packages - it's not like you're having to ship the stuff across the country.
Yes, I'm one of those that view my vehicle as mostly transportation from spot A to B. No, I don't think they'll be FORCING you into one. On the other hand, given that you mentioned motorcycle riding - you do realize that a robocar is more likely to spot and avoid you than a random cell-phone talking makup applying soccer mom in a SUV, right?
If it wasn't for the pain of trying to arrange a trip on the bus and the extra time involved, I'd rather just read a book on the way to the mall or work or wherever.
Let's not forget drug use so massive that countries just give up on enforcing their laws.
I think this is a misguided effort, but I agree on most of the other points.
Not to mention that boot camp is designed to do the very thing he wants - break down a person to enable a better rebuild.
Stress leading to a breakdown of the individual, good healthy work and discipline - doesn't sound like a bad idea to me.
Mix in some training/counseling as necessary and you should be good.
1: 'Minor exposure' != death, or even necessarily sickness ;)
2: So major nuclear plants are going to be built? Cool!
2(serious): It's got a 60 year track record of being safer than Coal and hydro, per kwh produced. Have you ever looked at the figures for deaths caused by coal power pollution? It's not pretty.
3: Sure there has. All sorts of them in the USA. They just haven't been done without government oversight, and frequently funding.
NEVER will a nuclear power plant be cost-ompetitive with wind/solar+hydrogen storage.
Ah, you've never studied economics apparently. Solar tends to run more than 10X per kwh than a nuclear plant, which for the last decade has been coming out slightly cheaper than coal, on average. Wind is coming down, cost is down to about the same per watt of capacity - but has a power production factor of about a third of a nuke plant. In a good spot, a wind turbine will produce about 30% of it's rated max capacity. A nuclear plant will produce 90%.
As for hydrogen storage, you need to be aware that the biggest source of hydrogen is cracking natural gas for it. The only serious proposed method for producing hydrogen from electrolosys in an industrial fashion is to use a nuclear power plant for the free heat, combined with a catalyst and a bit of electricity.
You would have me taking you more seriously if you'd mentioned pumped storage, flywheels, or even compressed air instead. I've seen serious proposals for them.
life = taking risks. Businesses with guaranteed revenue streams don't have to.
Think about it, the only nuclear power plant to cause significant human casualties was a government run one.
Meanwhile, all the other nuclear plants in the world, private and public, have managed to rack up an impressive safety record.
The DOE arranges for private companies running plants to see that it's far more profitable to run the plants safely and they will.
You can say the same about ANY industry - I'm not suggesting getting rid of the DOE, and liability concerns will tend to keep things in hand.
Look at it this way - an unsafe plant is a liability.
A: A plant that's had an accident isn't producing power - no power = no electricity to sell = no money. No money BAD
B: A plant that's had an accident has liability problems, especially if there's a radiation release. Liability = suits = lost money. Lost money BAD
I do the vent indoors thing as well. the nylon stocking acts as a secondary filter, like the HEPA ones on many vacuums today. The lint filter is only a coarse mesh - it doesn't catch anywhere near everything.
That's not exactly what I was describing. The actual heat exchanger is the closest. A dry has a input and a output airstream, cool dry air is drawn in from the house and heated then the hot (very) dry air is cycled through the clothing, becoming moist hot air that is normally expelled outside.
What I propose instead is to put a heat pump system - think window AC unit or dehumidifier, into the mix. It pulls the energy in a very active fashion from the expelled air, putting it in the incoming air.
Probably increase the cost of a dryer by ~$300 - the average cost for many portable/window AC units, and provide 10,000-15,000 BTUs of heat when in operation. Remember, we're talking about moving heat from hot to cold - this can be done passively, but that takes a lot of space. AC units can move heat very efficiently this way. Assuming you go with a 10k BTU system, you'd be replacing a 12 amp, 240V heater that would use ~3kwh for each hour of operation with a 6 amp, 120V device that would use less than 1 kwh. Figure a 4 to 1 power reduction(to be generous), that's 3 kwh saved per hour. In my area, that'd be $.30. Figure heavy family use at 1 hour a day, that'd be $110 a year. Payoff: 3-4 years. Not bad. Much higher for a business like a laundrymat. For a laundry - don't forget the savings in AC.
This is part of the problem I can see with it. Cops, unintentional or not, will accidentally dial in the higher settings when they really want to use a non-lethal round.
On the flipside, a good part of the reason crooks feared cops was getting lethally shot. Take that away and you can have issues.
That's exactly how my last two dryers have worked; they use cold water to cool down the back plate, which causes condensation that is pumped out. No hot air exhaust at all, and they use less than a quarter as much electricity as a regular dryer. I'm amazed that consumers here in the US still buy the other kind, and seem to be unaware of the more efficient type.
Doesn't sound exactly like I'm talking about. The only condensate I'm talking about would be from the cooled hot air - as cool air can't hold as much moisture as hot air. The heat pulled from the hot air is moved over to the input side, giving you ~2-4 units of heat per unit of electricity used. As a result of the cooled moist air, you'll get substantial amounts of condensate, thus the pump to the drain. Probably more expensive than your version, but probably faster. Use a bit more electricity, but no water.
As for not having heard of them, you have to remember we're the land of cheap energy, to include electricity, and to install the type you're talking about would require a major water input and a drain. We're also, in many ways, shorter on water than we are on electricity.
For air conditioning, are you talking about cars, window, or central? Cars do seem to pull from outside by default, mostly because the small space involved means most people want fresh air. Window AC units seem to default to conditioning air from the inside, and I've never seen a central unit that doesn't pull from inside. You have to remember that a AC unit is going to have TWO radiators - a cold side and a hot side. Just because it's blowing hot air from the unit outside doesn't mean that the air came from inside.
Auto sensing seems to be a good idea. Heck, I've had ideas about dumping the heat into waste water, or if you live in an area with plentiful cheap water - dump the heat into that.
The computer stuff I know about. I have power saving options set - no screen saver, straight to shut off the monitor.
I tend to prefer a cooperative, which is technically private. Still, I have nothing against a truly privately run nuclear plant as long as they're operating safely.
It's not like they're the only source of power, so they can't just increase prices. They have to be competitive.
Actual industry term. You can google it if you want to.