You just described a heat pump desuperheater. Rather than pumping heat outside by primary preference, it pumps it into your hot water tank first. Most places require more cooling though, so it still has to ship the majority of it outside. With the desuperheater, you also get reduced cost hot water even when you're heating the house.
Not to mention increasing the cost. 1" Steel(or other) mesh, sufficient to resist the larger faster hail, is going to add substantially to the cost. We're already at the least riding the edge of economy, in most cases way over it. Having to armor your panels would often be the difference between 'Okay' and 'Not yet'.
Not to mention when you start getting into 20 year payback periods, you have to worry about things like a 5% chance of a 100 year storm taking stuff out.
But it's tough to guard against things like that. Assuming that there's a 2% annual average chance of weather damage, that's $1k a year in insurance costs to add into the maintenance budget. Substitute your own rates if you want.
DC to DC converters do exist - just look at all the car adaptor 19V laptop power supplies out there.
But you're right, they do convert the DC to AC in the middle. They just do it in the kilo to megahertz range, increasing efficiency and decreasing the required size for the transformer.
Seriously, if I had a $300+ monthly electricity bill, I would start by seeing how I could reduce the amount of electricity used.
Exactly. By the sound of it, he has an active family. Thus, I suggest replacing any CRT/Plasma televisions with LCD versions. OLED would be better, but they're still a few years off. Replace all appliances with energy star ones. If you want to start moving out of the mainstream, there's further items. Like switching from electric heat to a heat pump system. Let's suppose he's on electric hot water and his family uses lots of hot water, and using less isn't an option. Well, there are a number of flavors of heat pump water heaters - from the desuperheater units on many heat pump systems to actual heat pump units that pull heat from the surrounding air. Or a solar water heater. Adding more insulation to the house.
Heck, I was just considering what would happen if you took a straight electric dryer and instead of just exhausting the hot air outside if you used a heatpump (think dehumidifier or window size AC unit) to move that heat(very efficiently) to the incoming air before using direct electric heat to warm it up. You'd probably need to add a line to a drain, and a pump to empty out the condensate, but most dryers are located next to washing machines, and they have a drain.
If you wanted to be a crotchety bitch, which clearly you did, you would have mentioned that it'll take him roughly 11-15 years to recoup his investment of $40,000 for the equipment and setup. That's what I'd go with.
Yeah, that's why I generally just look at cost per Kwh - Solar scales from 500 to 5000 kwh/month - all costs scale more or less in line. The 5000kwh system will cost roughly 9-10x the 500kwh one, because solar does scale up somewhat well. It's just that until recently the sheer cost of solar also made things like upgrading to a sunfrost refrigerator that uses a fraction of the power, but costs 10X as much as a standard efficiency fridge.
If anything it makes more sense for Al Gore to install solar - he uses enough juice to make a large system practical sooner. That and disconnected houses that are far from utility poles.
I recently looked at a booth where the guy was trying to sell wind turbines - in my area, even with high wind, I'd be looking at spending $10k to save $10/month. I have less remaining lifespan than the payoff period. He was talking about possibly getting subsidies for the smaller turbines next year. I think subsidies miss the point - looking at the system, all the parts are commodity, there just isn't much room for cost savings for bulk production. It'll never make economic sense. Big turbines just make more sense. For example, rather than me putting up a small turbine, the whole town cooperates and puts up a big one(or three).
Or, you can have the traditional marketing reason.
1a. Much like any retail store, you have wholesale price*(the one the store BUYS it at) and retail price(the one the store sells it at). The difference pays salaries, premises costs, taxes, misc expenses. That's why stores won't let you return items from other stores to them - you'd essentially be selling it to them for retail, which doesn't make them any profit. Consider yourself lucky you can use the power company for load balancing for only the monthly connection fee. 1b. Historically, electricity production has scaled well. Roughly speaking, this means a power station becomes cheaper per watt of capacity and kwh of production the larger it is. A gigawatt plant is cheaper for the capacity than a megawatt one is cheaper than a diesel than a gasoline. 2. Micropower wouldn't really hurt government income at all - maintenance will still need to be done. The algae farm will need workers(who will be paid, and therefore taxed). Road taxes will have to be paid on the fuel. Likely more workers than what a traditional oil well would require for an equivalent amount of diesel or other fuel. As a bonus they'd actually be in the states. The fact that it's a coop doesn't mean that it doesn't need to pay taxes. 3. How would the cost of living be reduced? If it was truly cheaper we would of already done it.
*Real wholesale, not the fake wholesale that is frequently marketing
While if 'everybody' installs these systems I do think that there's a good probability that less in the way of transmission lines would be needed(capacity wise), the 'power to next door neighbor' is actually fairly unlikely - on the whole, your neighbor is going to be using power the same time you are.
Is it dark out for you? It'll be dark for your neighbor. Is it hot enough to require AC? Then it's hot enough for your neighbor unless he's been creative and went for an earth home or such.
You'd want to run some nice long connections to get to areas in different time zones, different weather patterns, etc...
For example, a super conductive line from Texas to the Dakotas - the Dakotas sell power to Texas during the summer heat(probably from wind turbines), Texas sells power to the Dakotas in the winter for heating purposes.
Of course, in all of this I'd still build a bunch of nuclear plants to provide base load power.
India's not in the greatest environmental shape either. It's had it's share of disasters as well.
At least in China's case, while they are indeed taking a number of temporary measures to reduce pollution, they are indeed taking a number to reduce it permanently - a number of the dirtier factories aren't going to open back up, and a number are taking the downtime to install better pollution controls/production methods.
Opps... Forgot to add in --He was 'busted' in a 45 zone - not a 55. So he would of had to go from below 45, up to 62, and back down to below 45, keeping AVERAGE speed at 45 - very unlikely.
I guess the point I'm trying to make is that everything humans do is dangerous - as they say 'Nobody's getting out alive'.
On average, coal power is more deadly than nuclear. Heck, even Hydro, per kwh, could be considered more dangerous.
Working with sugar can be hazardous - in large quantities and industrial settings, sugar dust can reach explosive levels. Heck, we used to have 3-5 grain silos explode in the midwest each year. Average casualties were something like 3-5.
If you go by the safety aspect, it's not that humans can't be trusted with large numbers of nuclear plants, it's more like why aren't we using more of them?
I think you misunderstood me. I'm not objecting to the existence of the capsules - I'm objecting to the cost of the capsules. As for the 'quick' part - if the capsule isn't on hand(and it's not likely to be, if they only have seven of them), it's no faster than flying a VIP plane in.
At the current expense, we could replace every 'kennel' with a plane and still come out ahead.
Did you have to make me start pulling out the various chemical disasters around the world?
Chernobyl - 56 direct deaths, unknown number due to later cancer and other side effects from radiation, and perhaps an extra 5k cases of cancer(whether fatal or not not mentioned, estimate only). Bhopal - ~8,000 in the first two weeks, estimates range from 15k-20k total. Ammonium nitrate is dangerous stuff - an explosion in Texas killed 581. What about Coal power? Benxihu Colliery explosion killed 1,549.
TMI is actually pretty much our worst case scenario - the only multi million industrial accident where nobody died. Don't forget that we pre-entomb our reactors, which would stop a Chernobyl situation even IF we were stupid enough to run RBMK reactors.
Wrong reactor - I was talking about the smaller one - Which is still operating and producing electricity.
They are expecting to shut it down in not too long, but then, the thing's older than I am.
With the modern developments in various material technologies, not to mention our relatively new ability to prototype stuff on computer, we should be able to solve the problems that plagued the Superphoenix.
I think this is spot on, for the most part. Most newer cars, and I imagine trucks,
Haven't seen one standard yet on a non-hybrid. And I went car shopping not all that long ago. Still, when it comes to professional trucking - they'll often take courses on how to maximize fuel efficiency, and that was even before fuel prices rose - when you're getting 3-4mpg driving cross country, every little bit helps, especially when it's your business. A couple hundred gallons of fuel was a couple hundred dollars that could have been in your pocket.
Though personally, I have to laugh a bit on the now required tire pressure monitors - as you note, we'd probably save huge amounts of gasoline simply by having a mpg gauge. Doesn't even have to be particularly accurate, as long as it's consistent. IE 31 might actually be 36, but as long as 25 maps to 29 as well, it still gets the point across.
Oh and if the worst that could happen would be that a couple people accidentally recieve radiation poision thousands of years from now...well lemme put it like this. Tough luck for them!
Going by our own history, odds are that even if we completely destroyed all of our radioactive waste people would STILL die from radiation poisoning in the redevelopment of technology - just look at Madam Curie. The watch painters(painting with radium paint, licking the brushes to keep them sharp).
If I had my way, we'd be installing solar water heating systems south of the mason-dixon line. Heck, as a supplement I wonder if some variant of the Einstein AC system might not reduce electricity usage due to AC substantially.
Still, we need electricity, and nuclear is a good way to get it.
I pay ~.08 for my power, I'd have to haul out my statement to be exact. And that's for on demand (IE not off peak) electricity.
You have the advantage that you're buying power from a fully paid of nuclear plant - new ones would be slightly more expensive depending on the period of the construction loan or recouping of construction cost.
Just try announcing that you're going to set up a breeder reactor and write to a few people with nuclear waste asking what their "Buy It Now" price is, and see how that works out for you.
Assuming that you've found a way to do it safely and legally(the more difficult part), I'd say that the price would be in the negatives.
At least until people pop up with competing breeder reactors(or other nuclear waste burning power producers).
1. That's the thing, in NEVADA it might be a political death sentence - but it's mostly over the storage of long term, unrecycled nuclear waste. What I'm proposing would probably cut the opposition by a huge portion - storage of less material that'll remain dangerous for a much shorter period of time. 2a. We don't see more closed systems because it costs more, is the simple answer. A system that is water-neutral(IE you load it with water once, maybe have the occasional flush), might have cooling systems that cost 10X as much as one that uses a river. Cheapest is single pass - you simply run river water through your big radiators. Next would be cooling towers - using evaporation of a portion of the water to cool things down. Most expensive is a dry air radiation system. With the first two systems, there's nothing preventing you from feeding the water into a municipal system afterwards. 3. And you'd be right, just see 2a. It can be cheaper just to shut down a couple months every 40 years than to build sufficient cooling. In the case I'm thinking of, what happened is that the temperature of the water in the river went over what the plant was allowed to release water at - blocking them from using the water for cooling, period. Possible solutions might be cooling towers(low river levels wouldn't help) or increased dry passive cooling ability, which would admittably be difficult given the heat wave at the time. 4. In many areas that's not sufficient anymore. Gas prices are hurting people. 5. I wasn't talking about construction deaths, I was talking about fatalities from traffic accidents/rollovers for the maintenance crews. Wind power is disbursed, and those turbines aren't maintenance free. 6. What you pay matters if you're looking at putting a turbine or solar panels up on your property. What the utility is willing to pay matters if you're looking to sell the power to the grid. And while you pay 15, I pay 8. I'd pay less if I used more than 1k kwh/month. Figure 2-3 cents to maintain the transmission equipment, leaving ~5 cents/kwh for baseband power. By that standard wind and solar are still not economical for baseload, and those figures probably don't include the necessary backups if the power goes out. 7. If it's truly going to save you money in the long run, home improvement loans shouldn't be hard to get. Yes, it's going to cost me some money - I'm going to need 2 meters, for example. One will be for my heating stuff(electric heater for the furnace, water heater), one will be for house power for on demand applications. 8. Love to see a game change. I've just seen so many technologies that offer promis but don't pan out. I've become a little cynical. Remember - cheap, reliable electricity is needed if EVs are to become economical. Nuclear power plants can provide that.
Well, multiple languages isn't a bad idea - especially if they use different alphabets. Though there's a good chance of it ending up being a new rosetta stone - used to crack the meaning of otherwise lost languages.
Express some of the ideas as pictograms.
Won't prevent grave robber types, or a Madam Curie situation, but realistically, you're going to get them anyways. A redeveloping society that's lost the concept of radiation is most likely going to lose people in redeveloping it. We could save more lives by including a tech repository in that case.
While a complex language, I'd think that it's a good one in that it's one that many people on earth know(in China, at least), it's got a long history behind it(therefore less likely to be lost, more likely to be rediscovered), and is in a different area - whatever takes us down might not take them down as bad.
Slashdot Mirror
You just described a heat pump desuperheater. Rather than pumping heat outside by primary preference, it pumps it into your hot water tank first. Most places require more cooling though, so it still has to ship the majority of it outside. With the desuperheater, you also get reduced cost hot water even when you're heating the house.
Not to mention increasing the cost. 1" Steel(or other) mesh, sufficient to resist the larger faster hail, is going to add substantially to the cost. We're already at the least riding the edge of economy, in most cases way over it. Having to armor your panels would often be the difference between 'Okay' and 'Not yet'.
Not to mention when you start getting into 20 year payback periods, you have to worry about things like a 5% chance of a 100 year storm taking stuff out.
But it's tough to guard against things like that. Assuming that there's a 2% annual average chance of weather damage, that's $1k a year in insurance costs to add into the maintenance budget. Substitute your own rates if you want.
DC to DC converters do exist - just look at all the car adaptor 19V laptop power supplies out there.
But you're right, they do convert the DC to AC in the middle. They just do it in the kilo to megahertz range, increasing efficiency and decreasing the required size for the transformer.
Seriously, if I had a $300+ monthly electricity bill, I would start by seeing how I could reduce the amount of electricity used.
Exactly. By the sound of it, he has an active family. Thus, I suggest replacing any CRT/Plasma televisions with LCD versions. OLED would be better, but they're still a few years off. Replace all appliances with energy star ones. If you want to start moving out of the mainstream, there's further items. Like switching from electric heat to a heat pump system. Let's suppose he's on electric hot water and his family uses lots of hot water, and using less isn't an option. Well, there are a number of flavors of heat pump water heaters - from the desuperheater units on many heat pump systems to actual heat pump units that pull heat from the surrounding air. Or a solar water heater. Adding more insulation to the house.
Heck, I was just considering what would happen if you took a straight electric dryer and instead of just exhausting the hot air outside if you used a heatpump (think dehumidifier or window size AC unit) to move that heat(very efficiently) to the incoming air before using direct electric heat to warm it up. You'd probably need to add a line to a drain, and a pump to empty out the condensate, but most dryers are located next to washing machines, and they have a drain.
If you wanted to be a crotchety bitch, which clearly you did, you would have mentioned that it'll take him roughly 11-15 years to recoup his investment of $40,000 for the equipment and setup. That's what I'd go with.
Yeah, that's why I generally just look at cost per Kwh - Solar scales from 500 to 5000 kwh/month - all costs scale more or less in line. The 5000kwh system will cost roughly 9-10x the 500kwh one, because solar does scale up somewhat well. It's just that until recently the sheer cost of solar also made things like upgrading to a sunfrost refrigerator that uses a fraction of the power, but costs 10X as much as a standard efficiency fridge.
If anything it makes more sense for Al Gore to install solar - he uses enough juice to make a large system practical sooner. That and disconnected houses that are far from utility poles.
I recently looked at a booth where the guy was trying to sell wind turbines - in my area, even with high wind, I'd be looking at spending $10k to save $10/month. I have less remaining lifespan than the payoff period. He was talking about possibly getting subsidies for the smaller turbines next year. I think subsidies miss the point - looking at the system, all the parts are commodity, there just isn't much room for cost savings for bulk production. It'll never make economic sense. Big turbines just make more sense. For example, rather than me putting up a small turbine, the whole town cooperates and puts up a big one(or three).
Or, you can have the traditional marketing reason.
1a. Much like any retail store, you have wholesale price*(the one the store BUYS it at) and retail price(the one the store sells it at). The difference pays salaries, premises costs, taxes, misc expenses. That's why stores won't let you return items from other stores to them - you'd essentially be selling it to them for retail, which doesn't make them any profit. Consider yourself lucky you can use the power company for load balancing for only the monthly connection fee.
1b. Historically, electricity production has scaled well. Roughly speaking, this means a power station becomes cheaper per watt of capacity and kwh of production the larger it is. A gigawatt plant is cheaper for the capacity than a megawatt one is cheaper than a diesel than a gasoline.
2. Micropower wouldn't really hurt government income at all - maintenance will still need to be done. The algae farm will need workers(who will be paid, and therefore taxed). Road taxes will have to be paid on the fuel. Likely more workers than what a traditional oil well would require for an equivalent amount of diesel or other fuel. As a bonus they'd actually be in the states. The fact that it's a coop doesn't mean that it doesn't need to pay taxes.
3. How would the cost of living be reduced? If it was truly cheaper we would of already done it.
*Real wholesale, not the fake wholesale that is frequently marketing
While if 'everybody' installs these systems I do think that there's a good probability that less in the way of transmission lines would be needed(capacity wise), the 'power to next door neighbor' is actually fairly unlikely - on the whole, your neighbor is going to be using power the same time you are.
Is it dark out for you? It'll be dark for your neighbor. Is it hot enough to require AC? Then it's hot enough for your neighbor unless he's been creative and went for an earth home or such.
You'd want to run some nice long connections to get to areas in different time zones, different weather patterns, etc...
For example, a super conductive line from Texas to the Dakotas - the Dakotas sell power to Texas during the summer heat(probably from wind turbines), Texas sells power to the Dakotas in the winter for heating purposes.
Of course, in all of this I'd still build a bunch of nuclear plants to provide base load power.
My power company, like my phone company, is a coop. I'd like them to remain in business, thank you very much.
Then again, depending on your definition, a coop could be considered a 'public' company.
India's not in the greatest environmental shape either. It's had it's share of disasters as well.
At least in China's case, while they are indeed taking a number of temporary measures to reduce pollution, they are indeed taking a number to reduce it permanently - a number of the dirtier factories aren't going to open back up, and a number are taking the downtime to install better pollution controls/production methods.
Opps... Forgot to add in --He was 'busted' in a 45 zone - not a 55. So he would of had to go from below 45, up to 62, and back down to below 45, keeping AVERAGE speed at 45 - very unlikely.
Down, maybe. Up AND back down? Unlikely.
I guess the point I'm trying to make is that everything humans do is dangerous - as they say 'Nobody's getting out alive'.
On average, coal power is more deadly than nuclear. Heck, even Hydro, per kwh, could be considered more dangerous.
Working with sugar can be hazardous - in large quantities and industrial settings, sugar dust can reach explosive levels. Heck, we used to have 3-5 grain silos explode in the midwest each year. Average casualties were something like 3-5.
If you go by the safety aspect, it's not that humans can't be trusted with large numbers of nuclear plants, it's more like why aren't we using more of them?
I think you misunderstood me. I'm not objecting to the existence of the capsules - I'm objecting to the cost of the capsules. As for the 'quick' part - if the capsule isn't on hand(and it's not likely to be, if they only have seven of them), it's no faster than flying a VIP plane in.
At the current expense, we could replace every 'kennel' with a plane and still come out ahead.
Thing is, plenty of science fiction technologies have become science fact.
I have a different answer for him: Much like the flying car, it turned out to be too expensive and not efficient enough.
Did you have to make me start pulling out the various chemical disasters around the world?
Chernobyl - 56 direct deaths, unknown number due to later cancer and other side effects from radiation, and perhaps an extra 5k cases of cancer(whether fatal or not not mentioned, estimate only).
Bhopal - ~8,000 in the first two weeks, estimates range from 15k-20k total.
Ammonium nitrate is dangerous stuff - an explosion in Texas killed 581.
What about Coal power?
Benxihu Colliery explosion killed 1,549.
TMI is actually pretty much our worst case scenario - the only multi million industrial accident where nobody died. Don't forget that we pre-entomb our reactors, which would stop a Chernobyl situation even IF we were stupid enough to run RBMK reactors.
37" TV/Monitor is barely large enough to for general map work by three-four people. Try finding a 37" flatscreen monitor/tv WITHOUT speakers today.
Full length mirror? Many of these officers rub elbows with foreign military and other dignitaries. Many of whom are very status/appearance conscious.
My personal objection isn't so much for the capsules, but the sheer expense wasted on them. We could of had a couple small VIP planes for that price.
Wrong reactor - I was talking about the smaller one - Which is still operating and producing electricity.
They are expecting to shut it down in not too long, but then, the thing's older than I am.
With the modern developments in various material technologies, not to mention our relatively new ability to prototype stuff on computer, we should be able to solve the problems that plagued the Superphoenix.
I think this is spot on, for the most part. Most newer cars, and I imagine trucks,
Haven't seen one standard yet on a non-hybrid. And I went car shopping not all that long ago. Still, when it comes to professional trucking - they'll often take courses on how to maximize fuel efficiency, and that was even before fuel prices rose - when you're getting 3-4mpg driving cross country, every little bit helps, especially when it's your business. A couple hundred gallons of fuel was a couple hundred dollars that could have been in your pocket.
Though personally, I have to laugh a bit on the now required tire pressure monitors - as you note, we'd probably save huge amounts of gasoline simply by having a mpg gauge. Doesn't even have to be particularly accurate, as long as it's consistent. IE 31 might actually be 36, but as long as 25 maps to 29 as well, it still gets the point across.
Oh and if the worst that could happen would be that a couple people accidentally recieve radiation poision thousands of years from now...well lemme put it like this. Tough luck for them!
Going by our own history, odds are that even if we completely destroyed all of our radioactive waste people would STILL die from radiation poisoning in the redevelopment of technology - just look at Madam Curie. The watch painters(painting with radium paint, licking the brushes to keep them sharp).
If I had my way, we'd be installing solar water heating systems south of the mason-dixon line. Heck, as a supplement I wonder if some variant of the Einstein AC system might not reduce electricity usage due to AC substantially.
Still, we need electricity, and nuclear is a good way to get it.
I pay ~.08 for my power, I'd have to haul out my statement to be exact. And that's for on demand (IE not off peak) electricity.
You have the advantage that you're buying power from a fully paid of nuclear plant - new ones would be slightly more expensive depending on the period of the construction loan or recouping of construction cost.
Just try announcing that you're going to set up a breeder reactor and write to a few people with nuclear waste asking what their "Buy It Now" price is, and see how that works out for you.
Assuming that you've found a way to do it safely and legally(the more difficult part), I'd say that the price would be in the negatives.
At least until people pop up with competing breeder reactors(or other nuclear waste burning power producers).
Much like restraunts and waste grease.
1. That's the thing, in NEVADA it might be a political death sentence - but it's mostly over the storage of long term, unrecycled nuclear waste. What I'm proposing would probably cut the opposition by a huge portion - storage of less material that'll remain dangerous for a much shorter period of time.
2a. We don't see more closed systems because it costs more, is the simple answer. A system that is water-neutral(IE you load it with water once, maybe have the occasional flush), might have cooling systems that cost 10X as much as one that uses a river. Cheapest is single pass - you simply run river water through your big radiators. Next would be cooling towers - using evaporation of a portion of the water to cool things down. Most expensive is a dry air radiation system. With the first two systems, there's nothing preventing you from feeding the water into a municipal system afterwards.
3. And you'd be right, just see 2a. It can be cheaper just to shut down a couple months every 40 years than to build sufficient cooling. In the case I'm thinking of, what happened is that the temperature of the water in the river went over what the plant was allowed to release water at - blocking them from using the water for cooling, period. Possible solutions might be cooling towers(low river levels wouldn't help) or increased dry passive cooling ability, which would admittably be difficult given the heat wave at the time.
4. In many areas that's not sufficient anymore. Gas prices are hurting people.
5. I wasn't talking about construction deaths, I was talking about fatalities from traffic accidents/rollovers for the maintenance crews. Wind power is disbursed, and those turbines aren't maintenance free.
6. What you pay matters if you're looking at putting a turbine or solar panels up on your property. What the utility is willing to pay matters if you're looking to sell the power to the grid. And while you pay 15, I pay 8. I'd pay less if I used more than 1k kwh/month. Figure 2-3 cents to maintain the transmission equipment, leaving ~5 cents/kwh for baseband power. By that standard wind and solar are still not economical for baseload, and those figures probably don't include the necessary backups if the power goes out.
7. If it's truly going to save you money in the long run, home improvement loans shouldn't be hard to get. Yes, it's going to cost me some money - I'm going to need 2 meters, for example. One will be for my heating stuff(electric heater for the furnace, water heater), one will be for house power for on demand applications.
8. Love to see a game change. I've just seen so many technologies that offer promis but don't pan out. I've become a little cynical. Remember - cheap, reliable electricity is needed if EVs are to become economical. Nuclear power plants can provide that.
Well, multiple languages isn't a bad idea - especially if they use different alphabets. Though there's a good chance of it ending up being a new rosetta stone - used to crack the meaning of otherwise lost languages.
Express some of the ideas as pictograms.
Won't prevent grave robber types, or a Madam Curie situation, but realistically, you're going to get them anyways. A redeveloping society that's lost the concept of radiation is most likely going to lose people in redeveloping it. We could save more lives by including a tech repository in that case.
While a complex language, I'd think that it's a good one in that it's one that many people on earth know(in China, at least), it's got a long history behind it(therefore less likely to be lost, more likely to be rediscovered), and is in a different area - whatever takes us down might not take them down as bad.