Good point. Should have thought about it a bit more.
With a proper DC system it should be a little harder to electricute yourself was all I meant. As for DC killing you quicker, I was working off of what electricians told me, which is that AC will tend to throw you off because it makes your muscles twitch, while DC will lock them, holding you in the circuit.
Well, the fact that they're boosting power to 380 volts, three times that of traditional AC, will tend to reduce resistance losses for any given power cable. Power companies tend to up the voltage on their longer runs for the same reason. The same number of watts, run over a given length of wire at a higher voltage will loose less to resistance. In addition, DC to DC power converters have become far more efficient than they used to be.
When they used to talk about DC power systems be less efficient, you have to remember that most of them were talking about 12-48 volt systems.
From the article:
A DC system also would mean having to bring in larger cables than now exist with AC power.
Not according to my electronics class, if they're really going to be running at 380 volts. They'll need more insulation instead. I'd also want to be real careful around those wires. DC will kill you much quicker than AC of the same voltage/amperage. Then again, you don't have to worry about shorting yourself to ground with DC.
DC power is more of a niche idea that could help high-end users with large data centers, but will have less use to many other businesses, according to critics.
Yes, they'd lose a lot of customers - but they'd also no longer need as much warehouse space, less labor, fewer handling/sorting machines, etc... etc... The loss in revenue would be balanced by lower costs. It's a pretty complex tradeoff.
And I'd argue that the very vastness of their selection is a major part of what makes people subscribe to them. The loss in customers can easily outweigh the savings of cutting their selection.
While 90% of their traffic may come from 10% of their stock, part of their attractivness is the vastness of their selection compared to the corner video store. If they try to restrict their warehouse to the 'major' 10%, suddenly the corner store is able to offer a much more comparable service. Say the average consumer gets 3 videos a week from the service. That's 156 videos a year, of which a percentage will usually be outside of the major '10%'. 70% from 99.2% of their stock is a major amount. Sure, some titles are real moneymakers, but that's no reason to neglect the rest of their selection.
It's actually part of the reason hardware and department stores stock as much as they do. While most of their business might come from certain areas, it's partially the sheer selection that attracts many of their clients. Remove the selection to the point that the customers can't be reasonably sure of getting what they want and they'll start going elsewhere.
To me it makes no sense whatsoever to have two powerplants.
Have you ever flown commercial air? 99% of those planes have two engines. Admittably, it's more for redundancy/failsafe than efficiency, but still. Backup generators for the same reason.
I understand the efficiency argument but I at least have never managed to locate a study on energy consumption over the lifetime of a vehicle, including all construction, with a comparison between a basic econobox, and a hybrid one.
The cost difference is about $3000 right now. As for energy consumption, it's very difficult to calculate. Kinda like EPA milage figures, you end up having to use artificial figures because everyone drives different, in different situations. Then you also have the situation with pollution and availability. If I was in the government of a city with constant pollution problems, I'd look into subsidizing electric and hybrid vehicles simply to help clean up the air. Power plants can be both cleaner and more efficient that IC engines rather easily. Thus, I'd rate oil energy as more expensive than grid electric. Now, as to whether the cheapness of electric outweighs the additional expense of going with an EV(and it's limitations) or PHEV, that has yet to shake out completely.
And, at the same time... the VW Golf TDI gets around the same mileage (some would say better) as a prius or insight, but without having to drag batteries around, and without having to manufacture and later recycle batteries, either.
Well, they still have a starter battery, but think about this: What if they produced a diesel hybrid? We know it can be done, heck, just look at trains, they use a series drivetrain, the diesel engine hooks up to a generator that hooks to electric motors. Admittably, they do this to eliminate the need for a transmission, which would be huge and difficult to make because of the high loads trains carry. They need insane torque at low rpm's to get moving. The latest incarnations of hybrid batteries are now rated for 10 years/100k miles or more, so the battery angle is improving. Oh, and another benefit would be that you could run biodiesel in it, not to mention that they have some really efficient diesels, it's just that they're designed to run at constant loads/rpm's. Much easier to do with CVT's and electric motors/generators to even out the demand.
There are certain circumstances in which hybrids make some sense but batteries still suck and AFAIK their theoretical maximum power storage is still less than chemical fuel. That doesn't mean that it doesn't make sense to use them eventually, but they are fraught with problems.
Ok, here's the deal: Electric motors are great: 95+% efficiency, 99% torque at 0 RPM, only need 3/5 the horsepower for similar performance, they can be overdriven 200-800% for short periods of time, weigh less(when support equipment is included), require less maintenance, etc... Electric energy storage sucks: 25 kilograms of lead acid for 1 kw/h of storage, ~10.5 for NiMH, ~7.8 for LiIon. Though it is cheaper than gasoline(~$1/gallon equivalent).
On the other hand, Gasoline Engines suck: 30% efficiency is around the top end for them, require lots of maintenance, etc... Gasoline Energy Storage is Fantastic: 13 kw/h per kilogram. A tank can be refilled in minutes.
Now, everybody wants as much range as they can get, but as you add batteries you eventually start reaching limitations where the extra weight of batteries reduces range because of the extra energy spent hauling around more batteries. So it eventually makes sense to put the gasoline engine back in, especially since you can put a smaller more efficient engine in, using the electric for spikes in power demand(accelleration), and increasing efficiency by recovering energy from braking, not wasting it all as heat and brake pad wear. Then what yo
However, in audio, errors may produce distortion. If the distortion is mild and not particularly long lasting or extensive
Besides the relativly weak ec code that's present even for audio, the standard calls for interpolation that helps keep the distortion down.
Similar distortion in a document may leave a sentence or a paragraph, say, of scrambled text.
Such distortion in an executable is going to have far more tragic results. Binary data is much more fragile in this regard. What are the odds of the error occuring only in a section filled with comments? Never mind if it is compiled....
Very true, though having a few bytes off can also have extensive effects in more binary files than just executables. Database, filesystems, and compressed files are all more sensative to corruption than a simple text file. Heck, microsoft office documents are as well, as they have complex codings to keep track of all the formatting. The wrong error in the wrong spot and it could crash the whole system.
The audio CD format uses error correcting codes. I don't believe CDR data formats do
Actually, Data CD's do employ error correction codes, it's far more robust than for audio CD's. The need for a bit exact copy, while audio can get away with a certain amount of interpolation ensures that.
It adds up to a 13% hit for the 'true' capacity of a CD. IE a 650MB data CD actually has 750MB of capacity, without ECC.
You can run gasoline rich, too. The only bad things it will do are reduce power, kill your catalytic converter, and spew unburned hydrocarbons into the atmosphere. In fact, you want to run slightly lean if you can, retarding timing to avoid knock as required. The engine is most efficient there.
I meant richer than gasoline. Ethanol may have certain simularities to gasoline, but it is a different chemical, with different properties. Burning ethanol in the same air/fuel ratios as gasoline is running it extremely leanly. That may be why some states are requiring 'oxygenates'(which ethanol is) to be added to gasoline. It's forcing engines to run at an effectivly leaner level, reducing pollution. You have to put more fuel into a given cylinder with ethanol to have it run at the same effective leanness level. Because it's oxygenated, that means more fuel for any given amount of air in the chambers.
I drive 30 miles to work. If I should have to leave a couple hours in, I won't be able to, and when my batteries start to degrade, I'll probably notice because I won't be able to get there.
Why wouldn't you be able to get there? I'm talking about a PHEV, not an EV. Your IC engine would start up on the way back to get you home. You'd hardly notice, other than needing to fill up a little more often if you live outside of the 'electric only' range. That's why I said: 'charge the batteries at night enough that at least the shorter commutes don't even need to use it's IC engine.' (it refering to the PHEV vehicle).
PHEV stands for 'Plugin Hybrid Electric Vehicle'. It's a hybrid with an EV style charging system, and some additional battery capacity to be able operate in a pure electric mode for a longer period of time. Less than a full EV, of course, but they have all the range of pure gasolines and hybrids, maybe even a little more. You can even get the battery to be cheaper per kw/h of capacity(as compared to a standard HEV), as you're spreading the load across more battery, reducing the load. More battery to absorb the many watts pushed into it during regenerative braking, more battery to provide the amps for acceleration.
For example, my commute is 26 miles a day. If I get a PHEV rated for a 30 mile range, I might use a tenth of a gallon per trip, because highway speeds take more energy(which most of my commute is), so it'd probably start up the IC during the acceleration to highway speeds, plus a little bit at the end if the batteries run out. Probably use more in the winter, of course, as it gets cold up here(I hardly use AC, but heat is necessary in winter). Right now I use most of a gallon each day. That requires me to fill up every other week. That would switch to about three times a year with the PHEV. If it's rated for 50 miles, I'd actually have to worry about adding fuel stabilizer to my tank, I'd fill up with fresh so little. It'd be mostly for my trips to see my parents (700 mile trip).
Actually, I was just thinking about the energy density, not the economic issues. You lose some 30% of your range as compared to gasoline for the same quantity of fuel, and you also need a larger engine (or ridiculous compression) to get the same level of power.
Not necessarily. Up the compression a bit and much of that will go away, and the difference in compression isn't ridiculous. After all, diesels go even higher. As ethanol is an 'oxygenated' fuel, you can safely run richer as well. Thus, as another poster mentioned, you can actually get more power on ethanol than regular gasoline. Yes, you do consume more fuel doing it.
As for topsoil and desertification, that's only with improper soil management. If it gets too bad, they can always start dredging the rivers or even the ocean to get more.
Still, I see PHEV's(~30-50 mile electric range) as the way to go in the medium term (20-100 years). Build nuclear plants, charge the batteries at night enough that at least the shorter commutes don't even need to use it's IC engine. That'd drop the amount of biofuels needed to replace dinofuels enough that we could do it with a reasonable amount of cropland.
Uh, erosion control/prevention is a core part of farming today. Additionally, they don't have to pull the whole plant out when they harvest.
Not to mention that with some crops like switchgrass, it's essentially industrial mowing. Live plant is left on the ground, which proceeds to grow higher again.
As gasoline prices rise, other solutions become economically viable. As they become viable, resources are spent to develop the techniques even further, increasing their viability.
When the demand for ethanol reaches levels tens or hundreds of times what it previously was, investments that wouldn't be profitable in the past become so. Right now the prices are spiking because of increased demand while suppliers are lagging a bit behind. It takes time to build an ethanol plant, after all, and the switch away from MTBE and states requiring it as an additive aren't helping.
We've got other options, though, such as switchgrass and hemp
But, until fairly recently, those weren't suitable for conversion into ethanol because they don't have the necessary sugar/carbohydrate levels. Too much cellulose.
And yes, part of the issue is climate. Sugarcane requires more heat and water than corn. Corn, while affected by drought, actually has a complex system to withstand drought type conditions and conserve water, though it costs growth. Sugarbeets, while able to produce more ethanol per acre, also require more water.
I think that when it comes to ethanol production, many crops will end up being used, customized to maximize production per acre, available water, etc... Sugarcane in the south where water is readily available, but it's a little more complicated up north.
I wouldn't forget that most of the price of gasoline in europe is taxes, and do you really think that the government wouldn't start adding taxes to it if people started actually using it, costing them money?
First, sorry for the delay, no internet connection for a week. Gotta love setting up dishes in remote locations...
Not only more difficult, but more expensive. Gold is very cheap per kg compared to stuff brought to space. Not as in "some easy printable paper" but as in "ressources which could be used elsewhere". Fuel etc. Stuff which could feed billions of people on earth feed a few hundred on moon, if "expansion" is meant serious (suv and all;)
Agreed. However, we waste so many resources anyways(the aforementioned SUV's?), that spending a few billion on space research is pocket change. Besides, most of the problems with starvation(feeding people) is political, not technological or lack of resources. Can't do much about that unless we want to invade every sh*thole on the planet. My goal, given the expense of launching things up there would be to start sending up support structures, so the space station isn't the equivalent of going camping in the woods where you haul everything with you(food, fuel, etc...).
Blowing up? Sun? You can live full lives a few million times before that will happen. Regarding timescale. Regarding sustainable, if you blow up all the ressources to go to space, its much shorter.
So I think in the extremely long term on occasion. We're talking about the human race here. Of course, I figure that by the time we're ready to head to other stars, living on a planet will be almost past tense. The cost and time involved(by current understanding of physics), results in a society that's perfectly happy spending generations in space, so why not stay there permently. Still, we gotta take the first steps sometimes. And as I've learned, the best way to learn how to do something new is to actually do it. That means to learn how to colonize space we actually have to go up there. Sure it's expensive now. But done right, we should be able to stop sending so much up there each time. Imagine how much cheaper a space station would be if it had it's own greenhouse or something? Reduced demand for sending up oxygen and food, CO2 scrubbers, etc...
We're not contesting that it's not different. What we're saying is that all of them are effectivly the same purity level, containing the same additives and detergents. What is changed in premium is the mix of hydrocarbons, adding ones that are slightly harder to burn.
This difference can lead to increased carbon deposits, which can cause problems later on. 99.9% of cars on the road are optimized for regular, so that's what's best to burn in them. Putting premium in doesn't ward off the mechanic, instead, it can actually lead to having to visit him sooner. Meanwhile, you're paying ~$.10 more a gallon, which quickly adds up.
Well, at my usage, it shouldn't cost me more than $50/year. But still, that's a nice dinner out.
While premium gasoline has indeed undergone more refining steps, it's no purer than standard gasoline. The aftermarket additions of detergents and such are the same.
Instead, what the refining does is, like what has been stated, give you a slightly harder to burn mixture of gasoline. Specifically, it's harder to detonated from compression alone.
As for the earlier 'blown up enough cars', have you ever thought that it might be that they aren't designed for the (more expensive) gas you're putting in them? Carbon deposits aren't good.
So what, you get taller pistons, or ones with a different surface shape that makes the space in there smaller ?
They'd be slightly domed, rather than flat. It doesn't take much. Taller pistons might require a different head (depends on the spacing). Another option is to shave the head, but that's more difficult to reverse if you have to. 30x->x becomes 30x-y -> x-y, increasing the difference between piston in the low postion vs the high position. (x=volume of chamber under full compression, y=volume difference between flat&domed piston).
The tradeoff would be that if I couldn't get ethanol, I'd have to burn premium.
There may specifics to all this stuff, but I've blown up enough cars to know life is much easier if you remember it as "It's either give it to the gas stations a little at a time, or the mechanic that works on your car in one big chunk".
Changing your oil regularly and doing the preventive mainenance in the service book does more to prevent the big trip to the mechanic than using 'premium' gasoline. As others have stated, high-octance gasolines can actually cause more carbon deposit buildup, resulting in a trip to the mechanic.
The rule of thumb is 'Use the lowest octane gasoline that doesn't knock'. IE what's in your service manual. If that knocks, take to to see the mechanic for a tune-up/checkup/repair.
We've already done this. With ten-twenty million dollars worth of equipment, the US military can drop onto pretty much any point on earth and build a base from scratch.
Building something in space is indeed far more difficult, but distinct in that it's an expansion of the domain of humanity. We've been stewing for a while.
I want to either get off this rock or start colonizing the oceans, people! Preferably both. Though, in the 'sun is eventually going to blow up' timescale, getting off this rock is the #1 priority.
It has been adjusted, usually through adding chemicals, to burn a little slower. Too low of an octane for the engine's compression leads to knocking. Messing with the timing can fix some of this, but not all. Basically, if your car doesn't specify high octane, and it isn't pinging/knocking, you're better off with the cheap stuff. It's what your engine was designed for.
Now, a higher compression engine is more efficient and has more power for the displacement. Thus, it's popular for high end sports cars, planes, and such.
I ended up doing a bunch of research on this because I looked into converting my car to ethanol (with California switching from MTBE, my plans have been delayed. The cost of ethanol has skyrocketed from the increased demand). With a RON of 106 vs. 95 for gasoline, I'd be able to make up the difference in energy density(ethanol has only 2/3 the energy of gasoline) by increasing the compression in my engine by switching out the pistons.
Actually, the European and American methods of measuring octane are a little different. The end result is about the same for what you put in the engine.
[blockquote]That said, I doubt that "we reserve the right to block anyone who sues us" will look good in court. Trying to block sites because you think that they're gaming the ranking system is inherently reasonable because it's part of making the search engine better. Blocking sites because their owners sue you isn't reasonable because it's using criteria that have no relevance to end users. To a judge or jury it would look like crude indimidation and undermine Google's claim to objectivity.[/quote]
How about 'We reserve the right to delist and not deal with anyone who's suing us'?
They're not necessarily 'blocking' them, which implies denying people access to them. It's just that you can't use google to find them.
For a more or less relevant case, There is/was a class action lawsuit against Ford, saying that their crown victoria police interceptors were too vulnerable to vehicle fires when rear-ended.
Basically, what happened is that a number of police departments entered the suit(hoping for $$$), only to turn around and attempt to buy the very cars that they were suing Ford on the basis that they weren't safe. They turned around and sued Ford again, trying to force force Ford to sell them cars. Ford refused and won that suit (seperate from the one alleging that the cars were unsafe). The best link I could find for the practice
Slashdot Mirror
Good point. Should have thought about it a bit more.
With a proper DC system it should be a little harder to electricute yourself was all I meant. As for DC killing you quicker, I was working off of what electricians told me, which is that AC will tend to throw you off because it makes your muscles twitch, while DC will lock them, holding you in the circuit.
When I was talking about 'power', I was meaning watts. Sorry.
For a given wattage(IE work potential), a higher voltage will result in fewer watts being lost due to resistance accross the circuit.
Yes, this means that the number of amps crossing the circuit will go down.
I think you had better take that electronics class again...
Unless the other line is also hooked to ground, you're not going to get the current flow with a DC short that you would with an AC short.
When they used to talk about DC power systems be less efficient, you have to remember that most of them were talking about 12-48 volt systems.
From the article:Not according to my electronics class, if they're really going to be running at 380 volts. They'll need more insulation instead. I'd also want to be real careful around those wires. DC will kill you much quicker than AC of the same voltage/amperage. Then again, you don't have to worry about shorting yourself to ground with DC.
For now.
While 90% of their traffic may come from 10% of their stock, part of their attractivness is the vastness of their selection compared to the corner video store. If they try to restrict their warehouse to the 'major' 10%, suddenly the corner store is able to offer a much more comparable service. Say the average consumer gets 3 videos a week from the service. That's 156 videos a year, of which a percentage will usually be outside of the major '10%'. 70% from 99.2% of their stock is a major amount. Sure, some titles are real moneymakers, but that's no reason to neglect the rest of their selection.
It's actually part of the reason hardware and department stores stock as much as they do. While most of their business might come from certain areas, it's partially the sheer selection that attracts many of their clients. Remove the selection to the point that the customers can't be reasonably sure of getting what they want and they'll start going elsewhere.
Darn it, lost my earlier reply, here's a new one:
To me it makes no sense whatsoever to have two powerplants.
Have you ever flown commercial air? 99% of those planes have two engines. Admittably, it's more for redundancy/failsafe than efficiency, but still. Backup generators for the same reason.
I understand the efficiency argument but I at least have never managed to locate a study on energy consumption over the lifetime of a vehicle, including all construction, with a comparison between a basic econobox, and a hybrid one.
The cost difference is about $3000 right now. As for energy consumption, it's very difficult to calculate. Kinda like EPA milage figures, you end up having to use artificial figures because everyone drives different, in different situations. Then you also have the situation with pollution and availability. If I was in the government of a city with constant pollution problems, I'd look into subsidizing electric and hybrid vehicles simply to help clean up the air. Power plants can be both cleaner and more efficient that IC engines rather easily. Thus, I'd rate oil energy as more expensive than grid electric. Now, as to whether the cheapness of electric outweighs the additional expense of going with an EV(and it's limitations) or PHEV, that has yet to shake out completely.
And, at the same time... the VW Golf TDI gets around the same mileage (some would say better) as a prius or insight, but without having to drag batteries around, and without having to manufacture and later recycle batteries, either.
Well, they still have a starter battery, but think about this: What if they produced a diesel hybrid? We know it can be done, heck, just look at trains, they use a series drivetrain, the diesel engine hooks up to a generator that hooks to electric motors. Admittably, they do this to eliminate the need for a transmission, which would be huge and difficult to make because of the high loads trains carry. They need insane torque at low rpm's to get moving. The latest incarnations of hybrid batteries are now rated for 10 years/100k miles or more, so the battery angle is improving. Oh, and another benefit would be that you could run biodiesel in it, not to mention that they have some really efficient diesels, it's just that they're designed to run at constant loads/rpm's. Much easier to do with CVT's and electric motors/generators to even out the demand.
There are certain circumstances in which hybrids make some sense but batteries still suck and AFAIK their theoretical maximum power storage is still less than chemical fuel. That doesn't mean that it doesn't make sense to use them eventually, but they are fraught with problems.
Ok, here's the deal:
Electric motors are great: 95+% efficiency, 99% torque at 0 RPM, only need 3/5 the horsepower for similar performance, they can be overdriven 200-800% for short periods of time, weigh less(when support equipment is included), require less maintenance, etc...
Electric energy storage sucks: 25 kilograms of lead acid for 1 kw/h of storage, ~10.5 for NiMH, ~7.8 for LiIon. Though it is cheaper than gasoline(~$1/gallon equivalent).
On the other hand,
Gasoline Engines suck: 30% efficiency is around the top end for them, require lots of maintenance, etc...
Gasoline Energy Storage is Fantastic: 13 kw/h per kilogram. A tank can be refilled in minutes.
Now, everybody wants as much range as they can get, but as you add batteries you eventually start reaching limitations where the extra weight of batteries reduces range because of the extra energy spent hauling around more batteries. So it eventually makes sense to put the gasoline engine back in, especially since you can put a smaller more efficient engine in, using the electric for spikes in power demand(accelleration), and increasing efficiency by recovering energy from braking, not wasting it all as heat and brake pad wear. Then what yo
However, in audio, errors may produce distortion. If the distortion is mild and not particularly long lasting or extensive
Besides the relativly weak ec code that's present even for audio, the standard calls for interpolation that helps keep the distortion down.
Similar distortion in a document may leave a sentence or a paragraph, say, of scrambled text.
Such distortion in an executable is going to have far more tragic results. Binary data is much more fragile in this regard. What are the odds of the error occuring only in a section filled with comments? Never mind if it is compiled....
Very true, though having a few bytes off can also have extensive effects in more binary files than just executables. Database, filesystems, and compressed files are all more sensative to corruption than a simple text file. Heck, microsoft office documents are as well, as they have complex codings to keep track of all the formatting. The wrong error in the wrong spot and it could crash the whole system.
The audio CD format uses error correcting codes. I don't believe CDR data formats do
Actually, Data CD's do employ error correction codes, it's far more robust than for audio CD's. The need for a bit exact copy, while audio can get away with a certain amount of interpolation ensures that.
It adds up to a 13% hit for the 'true' capacity of a CD. IE a 650MB data CD actually has 750MB of capacity, without ECC.
Yeah, it'd be fairly trivial to shield a special facility for the short period of time needed to process the waste this way.
Meanwhile, you are going to be releasing a fair amount of energy doing it this quickly.
I've also heard about methods that focus on bombarding the substance with more radiation, a sort of 'tipping the scales' type operation.
You can run gasoline rich, too. The only bad things it will do are reduce power, kill your catalytic converter, and spew unburned hydrocarbons into the atmosphere. In fact, you want to run slightly lean if you can, retarding timing to avoid knock as required. The engine is most efficient there.
I meant richer than gasoline. Ethanol may have certain simularities to gasoline, but it is a different chemical, with different properties. Burning ethanol in the same air/fuel ratios as gasoline is running it extremely leanly. That may be why some states are requiring 'oxygenates'(which ethanol is) to be added to gasoline. It's forcing engines to run at an effectivly leaner level, reducing pollution. You have to put more fuel into a given cylinder with ethanol to have it run at the same effective leanness level. Because it's oxygenated, that means more fuel for any given amount of air in the chambers.
I drive 30 miles to work. If I should have to leave a couple hours in, I won't be able to, and when my batteries start to degrade, I'll probably notice because I won't be able to get there.
Why wouldn't you be able to get there? I'm talking about a PHEV, not an EV. Your IC engine would start up on the way back to get you home. You'd hardly notice, other than needing to fill up a little more often if you live outside of the 'electric only' range. That's why I said: 'charge the batteries at night enough that at least the shorter commutes don't even need to use it's IC engine.' (it refering to the PHEV vehicle).
PHEV stands for 'Plugin Hybrid Electric Vehicle'. It's a hybrid with an EV style charging system, and some additional battery capacity to be able operate in a pure electric mode for a longer period of time. Less than a full EV, of course, but they have all the range of pure gasolines and hybrids, maybe even a little more. You can even get the battery to be cheaper per kw/h of capacity(as compared to a standard HEV), as you're spreading the load across more battery, reducing the load. More battery to absorb the many watts pushed into it during regenerative braking, more battery to provide the amps for acceleration.
For example, my commute is 26 miles a day. If I get a PHEV rated for a 30 mile range, I might use a tenth of a gallon per trip, because highway speeds take more energy(which most of my commute is), so it'd probably start up the IC during the acceleration to highway speeds, plus a little bit at the end if the batteries run out. Probably use more in the winter, of course, as it gets cold up here(I hardly use AC, but heat is necessary in winter). Right now I use most of a gallon each day. That requires me to fill up every other week. That would switch to about three times a year with the PHEV. If it's rated for 50 miles, I'd actually have to worry about adding fuel stabilizer to my tank, I'd fill up with fresh so little. It'd be mostly for my trips to see my parents (700 mile trip).
Not necessarily. Up the compression a bit and much of that will go away, and the difference in compression isn't ridiculous. After all, diesels go even higher. As ethanol is an 'oxygenated' fuel, you can safely run richer as well. Thus, as another poster mentioned, you can actually get more power on ethanol than regular gasoline. Yes, you do consume more fuel doing it.
As for topsoil and desertification, that's only with improper soil management. If it gets too bad, they can always start dredging the rivers or even the ocean to get more.
Still, I see PHEV's(~30-50 mile electric range) as the way to go in the medium term (20-100 years). Build nuclear plants, charge the batteries at night enough that at least the shorter commutes don't even need to use it's IC engine. That'd drop the amount of biofuels needed to replace dinofuels enough that we could do it with a reasonable amount of cropland.
Uh, erosion control/prevention is a core part of farming today. Additionally, they don't have to pull the whole plant out when they harvest.
Not to mention that with some crops like switchgrass, it's essentially industrial mowing. Live plant is left on the ground, which proceeds to grow higher again.
It's happening
As gasoline prices rise, other solutions become economically viable. As they become viable, resources are spent to develop the techniques even further, increasing their viability.
When the demand for ethanol reaches levels tens or hundreds of times what it previously was, investments that wouldn't be profitable in the past become so. Right now the prices are spiking because of increased demand while suppliers are lagging a bit behind. It takes time to build an ethanol plant, after all, and the switch away from MTBE and states requiring it as an additive aren't helping.
True, but you don't need food grade oil, which can drop the price substantially.
We've got other options, though, such as switchgrass and hemp
But, until fairly recently, those weren't suitable for conversion into ethanol because they don't have the necessary sugar/carbohydrate levels. Too much cellulose.
And yes, part of the issue is climate. Sugarcane requires more heat and water than corn. Corn, while affected by drought, actually has a complex system to withstand drought type conditions and conserve water, though it costs growth. Sugarbeets, while able to produce more ethanol per acre, also require more water.
I think that when it comes to ethanol production, many crops will end up being used, customized to maximize production per acre, available water, etc... Sugarcane in the south where water is readily available, but it's a little more complicated up north.
I wouldn't forget that most of the price of gasoline in europe is taxes, and do you really think that the government wouldn't start adding taxes to it if people started actually using it, costing them money?
They have to pay for their healthcare somehow.
First, sorry for the delay, no internet connection for a week. Gotta love setting up dishes in remote locations...
;)
Not only more difficult, but more expensive. Gold is very cheap per kg compared to stuff brought to space. Not as in "some easy printable paper" but as in "ressources which could be used elsewhere". Fuel etc. Stuff which could feed billions of people on earth feed a few hundred on moon, if "expansion" is meant serious (suv and all
Agreed. However, we waste so many resources anyways(the aforementioned SUV's?), that spending a few billion on space research is pocket change. Besides, most of the problems with starvation(feeding people) is political, not technological or lack of resources. Can't do much about that unless we want to invade every sh*thole on the planet. My goal, given the expense of launching things up there would be to start sending up support structures, so the space station isn't the equivalent of going camping in the woods where you haul everything with you(food, fuel, etc...).
Blowing up? Sun? You can live full lives a few million times before that will happen. Regarding timescale. Regarding sustainable, if you blow up all the ressources to go to space, its much shorter.
So I think in the extremely long term on occasion. We're talking about the human race here. Of course, I figure that by the time we're ready to head to other stars, living on a planet will be almost past tense. The cost and time involved(by current understanding of physics), results in a society that's perfectly happy spending generations in space, so why not stay there permently. Still, we gotta take the first steps sometimes. And as I've learned, the best way to learn how to do something new is to actually do it. That means to learn how to colonize space we actually have to go up there. Sure it's expensive now. But done right, we should be able to stop sending so much up there each time. Imagine how much cheaper a space station would be if it had it's own greenhouse or something? Reduced demand for sending up oxygen and food, CO2 scrubbers, etc...
We're not contesting that it's not different. What we're saying is that all of them are effectivly the same purity level, containing the same additives and detergents. What is changed in premium is the mix of hydrocarbons, adding ones that are slightly harder to burn.
This difference can lead to increased carbon deposits, which can cause problems later on. 99.9% of cars on the road are optimized for regular, so that's what's best to burn in them. Putting premium in doesn't ward off the mechanic, instead, it can actually lead to having to visit him sooner. Meanwhile, you're paying ~$.10 more a gallon, which quickly adds up.
Well, at my usage, it shouldn't cost me more than $50/year. But still, that's a nice dinner out.
While premium gasoline has indeed undergone more refining steps, it's no purer than standard gasoline. The aftermarket additions of detergents and such are the same.
Instead, what the refining does is, like what has been stated, give you a slightly harder to burn mixture of gasoline. Specifically, it's harder to detonated from compression alone.
As for the earlier 'blown up enough cars', have you ever thought that it might be that they aren't designed for the (more expensive) gas you're putting in them? Carbon deposits aren't good.
So what, you get taller pistons, or ones with a different surface shape that makes the space in there smaller ?
They'd be slightly domed, rather than flat. It doesn't take much. Taller pistons might require a different head (depends on the spacing). Another option is to shave the head, but that's more difficult to reverse if you have to. 30x->x becomes 30x-y -> x-y, increasing the difference between piston in the low postion vs the high position. (x=volume of chamber under full compression, y=volume difference between flat&domed piston).
The tradeoff would be that if I couldn't get ethanol, I'd have to burn premium.
There may specifics to all this stuff, but I've blown up enough cars to know life is much easier if you remember it as "It's either give it to the gas stations a little at a time, or the mechanic that works on your car in one big chunk".
Changing your oil regularly and doing the preventive mainenance in the service book does more to prevent the big trip to the mechanic than using 'premium' gasoline. As others have stated, high-octance gasolines can actually cause more carbon deposit buildup, resulting in a trip to the mechanic.
The rule of thumb is 'Use the lowest octane gasoline that doesn't knock'. IE what's in your service manual. If that knocks, take to to see the mechanic for a tune-up/checkup/repair.
We've already done this. With ten-twenty million dollars worth of equipment, the US military can drop onto pretty much any point on earth and build a base from scratch.
Building something in space is indeed far more difficult, but distinct in that it's an expansion of the domain of humanity. We've been stewing for a while.
I want to either get off this rock or start colonizing the oceans, people! Preferably both. Though, in the 'sun is eventually going to blow up' timescale, getting off this rock is the #1 priority.
Not to mention that the worst you generally have to worry about with a cheap card is it failing early or being slow.
Putting regular into a high compression engine can damage it.
Once More:
High Octane Gasoline high quality gasoline.
It has been adjusted, usually through adding chemicals, to burn a little slower. Too low of an octane for the engine's compression leads to knocking. Messing with the timing can fix some of this, but not all. Basically, if your car doesn't specify high octane, and it isn't pinging/knocking, you're better off with the cheap stuff. It's what your engine was designed for.
Now, a higher compression engine is more efficient and has more power for the displacement. Thus, it's popular for high end sports cars, planes, and such.
I ended up doing a bunch of research on this because I looked into converting my car to ethanol (with California switching from MTBE, my plans have been delayed. The cost of ethanol has skyrocketed from the increased demand). With a RON of 106 vs. 95 for gasoline, I'd be able to make up the difference in energy density(ethanol has only 2/3 the energy of gasoline) by increasing the compression in my engine by switching out the pistons.
Actually, the European and American methods of measuring octane are a little different. The end result is about the same for what you put in the engine.
Europe uses RON, the US uses CLC (RON+MON)/2.
[blockquote]That said, I doubt that "we reserve the right to block anyone who sues us" will look good in court. Trying to block sites because you think that they're gaming the ranking system is inherently reasonable because it's part of making the search engine better. Blocking sites because their owners sue you isn't reasonable because it's using criteria that have no relevance to end users. To a judge or jury it would look like crude indimidation and undermine Google's claim to objectivity.[/quote]
How about 'We reserve the right to delist and not deal with anyone who's suing us'?
They're not necessarily 'blocking' them, which implies denying people access to them. It's just that you can't use google to find them.
For a more or less relevant case, There is/was a class action lawsuit against Ford, saying that their crown victoria police interceptors were too vulnerable to vehicle fires when rear-ended.
Basically, what happened is that a number of police departments entered the suit(hoping for $$$), only to turn around and attempt to buy the very cars that they were suing Ford on the basis that they weren't safe. They turned around and sued Ford again, trying to force force Ford to sell them cars. Ford refused and won that suit (seperate from the one alleging that the cars were unsafe). The best link I could find for the practice