Even if every home became totally energy independant, there'd still be quite a call for energy from businesses, industries, and skyscrapers.
Besides, the cost to make a home truly grid independant can get pretty hilareous from storage costs. Of course, hybrid car battery development might help with that.
Still, you can't just put up a windmill anywhere, especially in a city. And we'll see california, texas and other southern states reach near 100% coverage with solar decades before the northern tier states even start making significant installation rates.
As for selling power back to the utilities, there's sufficient issues with this that they'll soon start requiring some rather expensive equipment(at least currently) to sell power back. There's issues with syncing the power up and such. As well as power workers being able to make sure the power is off on the lines when they have to work on them.
It's for a simple reason. It's a low grade source. It's not economically feasable to do it. We're better off mining uranium out of high grade mines, at least currently.
I was talking in a sense of 'we magically pull all the uranium out of the coal/ash without significant effort or cost'. It's like pointing out that there's more gold dissolved in ocean water than all the gold mines combined. Why aren't we mining the ocean? Not worth it, it's too dispersed.
It's all a matter of scale. Good quality Black Coal is 24-30 MJ/kg, Uranium is 500,000 MJ/kg in a light water reactor. That's better than 16,000 times the energy density, best case scenario. That's 16 kilotons of coal burned for every ton of uranium.
A 1 thousand megawatt station will burn 3.1 million tons of black coal, versus 24 tons of uranium. For that matter, some 97% of the nuclear 'waste' is recyclable.
Meanwhile:
The 1,000 MWe coal-fired power station produces about 7 million tonnes of carbon dioxide each year, plus perhaps 200,000 tonnes of sulfur dioxide which in many cases remains a major source of atmospheric pollution. Other waste products from the burning of coal include large quantities of fly ash (typically 200,000 tonnes per year), containing toxic metals, including arsenic, cadmium and mercury, organic carcinogens and mutagens (substances that can cause cancer and genetic changes) as well as naturally-occurring radioactive substances.
Umm... Hydrogen fuel cells, for primary power? Not going to happen.
The problem is that you need H2 to get power. There are insignificant amounts of this on earth. It's all tied up in compounds such as H2O, CH4(methane), and such.
So you're looking at having to crack it from CH4(producing just as much carbon and less power than simply burning it), or seperating it from H20, and that pesky 2nd law of thermodynamics. You loose power from cracking water to simply turn it back into water in a fuel cell.
Hydrogen fusion, maybe. When you're going to fuse the atoms, the energy needed to electrolyse some water isn't beans. Hydrogen fuel cells for cars, maybe. That's more like using hydrogen as a storage medium, a kind of refillable battery, for the electricity from a big generation plant(like a nuclear fission or fusion reactor).
Then go with breeder reactors. 99% of your problem solved. The real reason for keeping the 'waste' around is that there's still alot of usable fuel in there. By some figures, conventional reactors only burn about 3% of the fuel.
When you get all the energy you can out of the fuel, the remainder doesn't stay radioactive for that long. Most of them are short to mid half-life isotopes, so they decay quickly.
Thing is, we aren't really prospecting for radioactives very hard. Oil's very profitable, so we're looking for it pretty hard.
Like any mineral resource, to include oil and such, there's several points for when you talk about how much is available. The two factors are the cost of extracting, and the difficulty of prospecting.
I'll use oil as an example. When you see figures for 'oil reserves' and remaining oil, it's generally the amount available at a certain price point. This is because it costs money and resources to extract. Certain fields almost spit it out, and then you have things like oil shale, where you have to really work at it. So it might cost $2 a barrel to extract from a Saudi Oil field, while it costs $60 a barrel to extract from Canada's oil shale fields. Thus, when they talk about the world's oil reserves, they generally don't include the shale fields.
Then you have prospecting. Nobody really looks very hard when Oil's at $10 a barrel, but when it's at $60 people tend to look very hard for additional sources.
As a third point, as the resource increases in value, technology for extracting the resource is developed. The very shale methods were developed around WWII due to the need for resources because fighting made many areas unsuitable. More recent innovations is being able to bend while drilling wells, thus being able to reach more fields economically.
As far as uranium and plutonium goes, we've discovered enough of it that we don't have to worry about it for the short term, due to a relativly intense search after WWII.
As price increases, more mines become economical, and prospecting increases. Uranium is relativly difficult to find compared to coal and oil.
Per This site using known sources they figure that we could last for almost a thousand years using conventional reactors. If we go to more fuel efficient reactors such as breeders, this can be extended into the tens and hundreds of thousands of years.
It's just that you might have to accept $500/kg uranium rather than $40/kg as it was as of the survey. This would translat to a few more cents per kw/hour of electricity. Fuel for a nuclear plant is actually one of the smallest expenses. Labor is the largest. Going with breeder reactors would, of course reduce the fuel cost.
For that matter, we're looking into reprocessing the waste from our current reactors again. The older stuff has had enough time to cool down to make this alot easier.
While coal burning indeed doesn't produce radiactivity like nuclear power does, there's actually so much radioactive material in it such as uranium that we'd get more power from refining it for the radioactives and sticking it in a reactor than burning it.
There's a former power plant worker out there that's DQ'd for life from working in a nuclear power plant because he absorbed too much radioactivity from his house. The bricks were made from coal ash.
Meanwhile, when you burn the coal, radioactive materials end up not only in the ash but go up the flue.
From what I've heard, incidents of stalkings and attacks are increasing in the USA. The 'tastes bad' seems to be a myth.
Bears seem to like us just fine. Treadwell hung out with them for a few years, until they ate him. Lions, Tigers both will attack, kill, and eat humans.
The hunter's theory is that until we discovered 'conservation', we'd gotten so vicious throughout history that we killed any large predators, both because they were competition and a direct threat.
The idea is that by allowing hunting, you both maintain population numbers that can comfortably stay within their ranges(away from humans) and kill the ones least cautious around hunters, thus encouraging them to avoid humans like the plague. Stalking an armed hunter is a far different proposition than an ordinary hiker. There are places in the US that I wouldn't go without being armed or in a large group, and there are a few that I wouldn't go without being part of a large armed group.
Well, to be fair, we're still improving the technologies for viewing them from home, bigger and better telescopes and such.
I figure that we have at least two more generations of remote detection methods before we'll have to send a probe to get more detail. Meanwhile, we might as well use them to get more detail, the more we know the better the probe can be. It's not like we're in a huge hurry right now.
Voyager's been on a ballistic course for most of it's journey, if I remember correctly. Yes, we do have quite a job ahead to get our electronics reliable enough for such a journey, but then again, we still got a while. Ion drive is right.
As for returning telemetry, well, that's why you'd build a double purpose radio telescope...
Problem is, we don't have any possible FTL technologies. Sure, we have some wormhole theories, and some involving huge rotating black holes, but we have no clue as to go about doing it. It's like trying to propose an atom bomb when we don't have any clue as to atomic structure or even atomic decay.
As we don't even have such technologies in the theoretical stages, I'll say that it's at least a hundred years off. As long as it stays that way, we might as well send an STL probe.
What's the worst that could happen? We send it off then develop FTL 5 years later and pass the probe by with a manned ship. So the effort was 'wasted'. Still, the probe could explode on the launch pad and be just as an expensive loss. Or meet with a mission ending meteor.
For that matter, I do carry a gun, and that also takes a certain amount of training. Not as much perhaps, though more is always better.
If nothing else, routine practice will help ensure your gun is and stays reliable. Too many* people buy one and then never use it, resulting in problems when a self-defense scenario occurs.
Yeah, it seems you're right. From the PDF:could approach $900, falling to $320 three years from launch.
I can't see how this DOESN'T include R&D and development costs, even if they're hidden by "The blue-ray drive unit costs $350 now, and they anticipate it dropping to $100 in three years." That and the CPU droping from $230 to $60.
From that I'm guessing that they might not be counting the development costs for the PS3, but are rolling them into the cost of the CPU/blueray drive.
Basically the CPU & drive were developed seperatly and individually, then were plugged into the PS3.
From what I've read, some of the stars are under 5 light years away. That's within near today technology to send a probe and get information back within somebody's lifetime. Say, 30 years to for it to get there, 5 years back.
Of course, we need to improve some more on artificial intelligence. We don't need something that can converse, but we do need something that can make decisions about proper behavior for unexpected events.
I agree. While it might make sense to make a loss-leader at first, you have to at least expect the production costs to drop quickly enough to make it worthwhile to take the hit for market share.
In that case, by being really, really cutting edge when you release the platform, you extend the relative life of it. Just look at the mini versions of the PS2 that are out now.
I believe that a huge chunk of that cost is development and Sony(or at least the executives in charge) are figuring to spread out the development costs over a longer than normal period.
The only thing I could think of was that maybe he was thinking of smallpox. That's been eradicated from the wild. Even polio is holding on in a few areas, mostly due to religious leaders stirring them up against the vaccine(something about it being birth control from what I heard).
Malaria is actually making a comeback, which some attribute to the banning of DDT. They say that DDT, used properly is effective and safe. You just don't go spraying whole countries with it.
It's an extremely long term goal. His point is simple: The Earth is eventually going to become uninhabitable, whether it be by human action or enviromental(giant asteroids count). Eventually our sun will die, taking out the earth in the later stages if it hasn't already been lost.
It came up in a discussion where a guy was talking about how we should return to 'sustainable' living, which in his mind was native american level technology, with few exceptions. He was really against the science program.
Please note that he and I are very loose in our definition of 'Anything'. For example, one could argue that a PRT system or fission plants 'aren't doing anything to get us off the planet', but in our minds, it's an advance, a more efficient use of resources, technological advancement, more research. Ethanol, Biodiesel, they may not be the fuel of space, or even of the future, but it'll let us keep working when the oil runs out.
What exactly is our aim in getting off the planet? If it's to find another place to live? Well, not in this solar system. Midterm, and I'm talking millennium here, I do want to see us getting off the planet. It is going to be expensive, but we can colonize Mars. We have most of the science needed already. While we're at it, we might as well put a test colony on the moon. Heck, they can put satellites in geosync for us cheaper(in launch energy terms) than we can. At least once they can make them from native materials.
Long Term? Well, as long as we escape the solar system a safe time before it goes up, or is eaten by a black hole, etc. I'm happy.
what? More space? More resources? For how long? Until they run out, or we discover the 'reset' switch, a way to violate the laws of thermodynamics.
I'm not saying it's a bad thing, or that I don't think it's worth thinking about. But I think the more interesting exploration is in another direction -- understanding the chaotic nature of massive network interactions; like a brain or a society. These are the explorations that will have a greater impact on the human condition. Good for you! But see above, we don't measure 'worthy' development as only space related ones. Anything that improves the human condition is a step in the right direction. Eliminate Alzheimer's disease? Great, we don't loose as many scientists to it. Heck, a greater understanding of the brain and it's networks can only help with crew selection and psyiological health during a long isolated mission.
In the meantime, conservation of this planet is a pretty good idea. Read above about ethanol, biodiesel, PRT, nuclear power.
If you read my posts, you'll find that I support conservation, it's just that I believe in technological solutions, and that we really can have our cake, and eat it too in this case(cause we've made more than one). I'm really fond of the PRT system, I'd like to get a pluggable hybrid(no gas for my commute!), I'd like to shut down the coal plants and go all nuclear for the baseline. For that matter, there's industries that could operate on a stuttering fashion to flatten out the power curve even more so you don't need as much burst generation capacity. We're getting better with ethanol and biodiesel, so make my hybrid an alternative fuels vehicle.
Just want to make a point: The military does not consider plain Full Metal Jacket as armor penetrating. However, because it does come to a point, it is marginally more effective at penetration than a Hollow Point.
Still, I fell obliged to point out that in either case we're talking about only a 10% or so difference.
It's been the law there for a while, nobody I know has been able to come up with a good answer. Supposably they're more dangerous to police officers. It was probably passed before wearing body armor became the standard.
Hollowpoints are NOT usually smaller than their FMJ equivalent. You can get.50cal hollowpoints, you can get.22LR fmj. In common self defense calibers(.45,9mm,.38,.32), both are available. They trade off penetration for more expansion. They're more effective against unarmored opponents, less vs armored.
It might seem odd, but hollowpoints make the most difference in the middle calibers. This is because large rounds like the.45 don't need to expand to cause enough damage, while a small, marginal round like the.32 often won't penetrate deep enough to effect a stop if it does expand. It also helps high velocity rounds like the 9mm and.357 more than slower rounds such as the.45.
A modded hybrid car is almost a non-entity when it comes to what is driving market forces
Actually, I view it as an indicator of demand. It means that there's still a market out there for electric and electric/hybrid cars. The major limiter on pure-electric cars was how long the batteries took to charge, and the fact that you needed special wiring to even keep up with the batteries. That 30 mile drive takes 6-8 hours at 110Vx20Amps. You can charge faster, but then you start needing electrical work and then a special charging station.
In the article I read about it, it seems that a number of auto manufacturers are considering it, at least as an option. It does cost a couple grand, mostly for beefier batteries, as current hybrids only have enough power for a couple miles as battery power is used used more to give you decent power with a smaller, more fuel efficient engine than as a primary moving force.
Heck, for that matter I'm far enough north that I'm already used to plugging my car in at night(block heater).
I believe this will be my last chance to drive an American V8
Big engines never go out of style. Well, maybe I should say big power never goes out of style.
Personally, I've never driven a non-work vehicle bigger than a four cylinder. Of course, I tend to drive small 2 door cars. I love the cheaper price and gas milage.
I don't believe gas prices are the cause of SUV sales decline, I think it's more the fact that people are looking at them as tall station wagons. I've heard the people moaning at the pump. It's definitly one of the factors. All the articles dinging them on safety is probably also having an effect.
Personally, my 'ideal' car right now would be a pluggable hybrid with AWD. AWD really helps when the roads are icy or snowy.
Very much true. Recycling will really hit it off once it makes economic sense to due so. I fully expect our dumps to eventually be 'mined' for resources when we develop the technology to make it practical.
Slashdot Mirror
Even if every home became totally energy independant, there'd still be quite a call for energy from businesses, industries, and skyscrapers.
Besides, the cost to make a home truly grid independant can get pretty hilareous from storage costs. Of course, hybrid car battery development might help with that.
Still, you can't just put up a windmill anywhere, especially in a city. And we'll see california, texas and other southern states reach near 100% coverage with solar decades before the northern tier states even start making significant installation rates.
As for selling power back to the utilities, there's sufficient issues with this that they'll soon start requiring some rather expensive equipment(at least currently) to sell power back. There's issues with syncing the power up and such. As well as power workers being able to make sure the power is off on the lines when they have to work on them.
Deal! Well, as long as you aren't going to be running an aluminum smelting plant or such. ;)
Heck, I'd also try to work there. Nuclear plants are great job oppertunities for local communities.
It's for a simple reason. It's a low grade source. It's not economically feasable to do it. We're better off mining uranium out of high grade mines, at least currently.
I was talking in a sense of 'we magically pull all the uranium out of the coal/ash without significant effort or cost'. It's like pointing out that there's more gold dissolved in ocean water than all the gold mines combined. Why aren't we mining the ocean? Not worth it, it's too dispersed.
It's all a matter of scale. Good quality Black Coal is 24-30 MJ/kg, Uranium is 500,000 MJ/kg in a light water reactor. That's better than 16,000 times the energy density, best case scenario. That's 16 kilotons of coal burned for every ton of uranium.
A 1 thousand megawatt station will burn 3.1 million tons of black coal, versus 24 tons of uranium. For that matter, some 97% of the nuclear 'waste' is recyclable.
Meanwhile:
The 1,000 MWe coal-fired power station produces about 7 million tonnes of carbon dioxide each year, plus perhaps 200,000 tonnes of sulfur dioxide which in many cases remains a major source of atmospheric pollution. Other waste products from the burning of coal include large quantities of fly ash (typically 200,000 tonnes per year), containing toxic metals, including arsenic, cadmium and mercury, organic carcinogens and mutagens (substances that can cause cancer and genetic changes) as well as naturally-occurring radioactive substances.
Umm... Hydrogen fuel cells, for primary power? Not going to happen.
The problem is that you need H2 to get power. There are insignificant amounts of this on earth. It's all tied up in compounds such as H2O, CH4(methane), and such.
So you're looking at having to crack it from CH4(producing just as much carbon and less power than simply burning it), or seperating it from H20, and that pesky 2nd law of thermodynamics. You loose power from cracking water to simply turn it back into water in a fuel cell.
Hydrogen fusion, maybe. When you're going to fuse the atoms, the energy needed to electrolyse some water isn't beans. Hydrogen fuel cells for cars, maybe. That's more like using hydrogen as a storage medium, a kind of refillable battery, for the electricity from a big generation plant(like a nuclear fission or fusion reactor).
Then go with breeder reactors. 99% of your problem solved. The real reason for keeping the 'waste' around is that there's still alot of usable fuel in there. By some figures, conventional reactors only burn about 3% of the fuel.
When you get all the energy you can out of the fuel, the remainder doesn't stay radioactive for that long. Most of them are short to mid half-life isotopes, so they decay quickly.
It all depends on how far we're willing to go.
Thing is, we aren't really prospecting for radioactives very hard. Oil's very profitable, so we're looking for it pretty hard.
Like any mineral resource, to include oil and such, there's several points for when you talk about how much is available. The two factors are the cost of extracting, and the difficulty of prospecting.
I'll use oil as an example. When you see figures for 'oil reserves' and remaining oil, it's generally the amount available at a certain price point. This is because it costs money and resources to extract. Certain fields almost spit it out, and then you have things like oil shale, where you have to really work at it. So it might cost $2 a barrel to extract from a Saudi Oil field, while it costs $60 a barrel to extract from Canada's oil shale fields. Thus, when they talk about the world's oil reserves, they generally don't include the shale fields.
Then you have prospecting. Nobody really looks very hard when Oil's at $10 a barrel, but when it's at $60 people tend to look very hard for additional sources.
As a third point, as the resource increases in value, technology for extracting the resource is developed. The very shale methods were developed around WWII due to the need for resources because fighting made many areas unsuitable. More recent innovations is being able to bend while drilling wells, thus being able to reach more fields economically.
As far as uranium and plutonium goes, we've discovered enough of it that we don't have to worry about it for the short term, due to a relativly intense search after WWII.
As price increases, more mines become economical, and prospecting increases. Uranium is relativly difficult to find compared to coal and oil.
Per This site using known sources they figure that we could last for almost a thousand years using conventional reactors. If we go to more fuel efficient reactors such as breeders, this can be extended into the tens and hundreds of thousands of years.
It's just that you might have to accept $500/kg uranium rather than $40/kg as it was as of the survey. This would translat to a few more cents per kw/hour of electricity. Fuel for a nuclear plant is actually one of the smallest expenses. Labor is the largest. Going with breeder reactors would, of course reduce the fuel cost.
For that matter, we're looking into reprocessing the waste from our current reactors again. The older stuff has had enough time to cool down to make this alot easier.
Coal byproducts aren't radioactive.
That's the thing. They are radioactive
While coal burning indeed doesn't produce radiactivity like nuclear power does, there's actually so much radioactive material in it such as uranium that we'd get more power from refining it for the radioactives and sticking it in a reactor than burning it.
There's a former power plant worker out there that's DQ'd for life from working in a nuclear power plant because he absorbed too much radioactivity from his house. The bricks were made from coal ash.
Meanwhile, when you burn the coal, radioactive materials end up not only in the ash but go up the flue.
And we don't like the smell of rotting carcasses because evolution has associated that with attracting thinks like disease and dangerous scavangers.
Actually, Bears, Lions, and Tigers all have instances where they become primary human hunters. India looses alot of people to Tigers each year.
The 2nd rate prey tends to be more an inherited caution about humans. We're pretty persistant on tracking down man eaters in most of the world.
From what I've heard, incidents of stalkings and attacks are increasing in the USA. The 'tastes bad' seems to be a myth.
Bears seem to like us just fine. Treadwell hung out with them for a few years, until they ate him.
Lions, Tigers both will attack, kill, and eat humans.
The hunter's theory is that until we discovered 'conservation', we'd gotten so vicious throughout history that we killed any large predators, both because they were competition and a direct threat.
The idea is that by allowing hunting, you both maintain population numbers that can comfortably stay within their ranges(away from humans) and kill the ones least cautious around hunters, thus encouraging them to avoid humans like the plague. Stalking an armed hunter is a far different proposition than an ordinary hiker. There are places in the US that I wouldn't go without being armed or in a large group, and there are a few that I wouldn't go without being part of a large armed group.
Well, to be fair, we're still improving the technologies for viewing them from home, bigger and better telescopes and such.
I figure that we have at least two more generations of remote detection methods before we'll have to send a probe to get more detail. Meanwhile, we might as well use them to get more detail, the more we know the better the probe can be. It's not like we're in a huge hurry right now.
Voyager's been on a ballistic course for most of it's journey, if I remember correctly. Yes, we do have quite a job ahead to get our electronics reliable enough for such a journey, but then again, we still got a while. Ion drive is right.
As for returning telemetry, well, that's why you'd build a double purpose radio telescope...
Problem is, we don't have any possible FTL technologies. Sure, we have some wormhole theories, and some involving huge rotating black holes, but we have no clue as to go about doing it. It's like trying to propose an atom bomb when we don't have any clue as to atomic structure or even atomic decay.
As we don't even have such technologies in the theoretical stages, I'll say that it's at least a hundred years off. As long as it stays that way, we might as well send an STL probe.
What's the worst that could happen? We send it off then develop FTL 5 years later and pass the probe by with a manned ship. So the effort was 'wasted'. Still, the probe could explode on the launch pad and be just as an expensive loss. Or meet with a mission ending meteor.
For that matter, I do carry a gun, and that also takes a certain amount of training. Not as much perhaps, though more is always better.
If nothing else, routine practice will help ensure your gun is and stays reliable. Too many* people buy one and then never use it, resulting in problems when a self-defense scenario occurs.
*Seriously, in this fashion 1 is too many.
Unless they're also burners, I agree with you. It shouldn't be too hard to make a remote addon with the PS3.
Oh, and reading the PDF, I noticed something strange with their $900. I added it up 3 times and came up with $800 every time.
Yeah, it seems you're right. From the PDF:could approach $900, falling to $320 three years from launch.
I can't see how this DOESN'T include R&D and development costs, even if they're hidden by "The blue-ray drive unit costs $350 now, and they anticipate it dropping to $100 in three years." That and the CPU droping from $230 to $60.
From that I'm guessing that they might not be counting the development costs for the PS3, but are rolling them into the cost of the CPU/blueray drive.
Basically the CPU & drive were developed seperatly and individually, then were plugged into the PS3.
From what I've read, some of the stars are under 5 light years away. That's within near today technology to send a probe and get information back within somebody's lifetime. Say, 30 years to for it to get there, 5 years back.
Of course, we need to improve some more on artificial intelligence. We don't need something that can converse, but we do need something that can make decisions about proper behavior for unexpected events.
I agree. While it might make sense to make a loss-leader at first, you have to at least expect the production costs to drop quickly enough to make it worthwhile to take the hit for market share.
In that case, by being really, really cutting edge when you release the platform, you extend the relative life of it. Just look at the mini versions of the PS2 that are out now.
I believe that a huge chunk of that cost is development and Sony(or at least the executives in charge) are figuring to spread out the development costs over a longer than normal period.
The only thing I could think of was that maybe he was thinking of smallpox. That's been eradicated from the wild. Even polio is holding on in a few areas, mostly due to religious leaders stirring them up against the vaccine(something about it being birth control from what I heard).
Malaria is actually making a comeback, which some attribute to the banning of DDT. They say that DDT, used properly is effective and safe. You just don't go spraying whole countries with it.
It's an extremely long term goal. His point is simple: The Earth is eventually going to become uninhabitable, whether it be by human action or enviromental(giant asteroids count). Eventually our sun will die, taking out the earth in the later stages if it hasn't already been lost.
It came up in a discussion where a guy was talking about how we should return to 'sustainable' living, which in his mind was native american level technology, with few exceptions. He was really against the science program.
Please note that he and I are very loose in our definition of 'Anything'. For example, one could argue that a PRT system or fission plants 'aren't doing anything to get us off the planet', but in our minds, it's an advance, a more efficient use of resources, technological advancement, more research. Ethanol, Biodiesel, they may not be the fuel of space, or even of the future, but it'll let us keep working when the oil runs out.
What exactly is our aim in getting off the planet? If it's to find another place to live? Well, not in this solar system.
Midterm, and I'm talking millennium here, I do want to see us getting off the planet. It is going to be expensive, but we can colonize Mars. We have most of the science needed already. While we're at it, we might as well put a test colony on the moon. Heck, they can put satellites in geosync for us cheaper(in launch energy terms) than we can. At least once they can make them from native materials.
Long Term? Well, as long as we escape the solar system a safe time before it goes up, or is eaten by a black hole, etc. I'm happy.
what? More space? More resources? For how long?
Until they run out, or we discover the 'reset' switch, a way to violate the laws of thermodynamics.
I'm not saying it's a bad thing, or that I don't think it's worth thinking about. But I think the more interesting exploration is in another direction -- understanding the chaotic nature of massive network interactions; like a brain or a society. These are the explorations that will have a greater impact on the human condition.
Good for you! But see above, we don't measure 'worthy' development as only space related ones. Anything that improves the human condition is a step in the right direction. Eliminate Alzheimer's disease? Great, we don't loose as many scientists to it. Heck, a greater understanding of the brain and it's networks can only help with crew selection and psyiological health during a long isolated mission.
In the meantime, conservation of this planet is a pretty good idea.
Read above about ethanol, biodiesel, PRT, nuclear power.
If you read my posts, you'll find that I support conservation, it's just that I believe in technological solutions, and that we really can have our cake, and eat it too in this case(cause we've made more than one). I'm really fond of the PRT system, I'd like to get a pluggable hybrid(no gas for my commute!), I'd like to shut down the coal plants and go all nuclear for the baseline. For that matter, there's industries that could operate on a stuttering fashion to flatten out the power curve even more so you don't need as much burst generation capacity. We're getting better with ethanol and biodiesel, so make my hybrid an alternative fuels vehicle.
Yeah, but I wanted to dissude people from carrying a knife for self defense casually.
Thing is, a knife is an extremely close ranged weapon. Statistically, it leads to the highest injury rate.
Not according to the statistics.
Paul Hager disagrees, quotes statistics
2nd Amendment Sisters say 97% of women who resist with a gun are successful
Dr. Robert J. Woolley's editorial shows up alot
Using a knife the worst choice of all? (40.3% injury rate, vs. 17.4% for a gun, 24.7 for 'did nothing')
Just want to make a point: The military does not consider plain Full Metal Jacket as armor penetrating. However, because it does come to a point, it is marginally more effective at penetration than a Hollow Point.
Still, I fell obliged to point out that in either case we're talking about only a 10% or so difference.
It's been the law there for a while, nobody I know has been able to come up with a good answer.
.50cal hollowpoints, you can get .22LR fmj. In common self defense calibers(.45,9mm,.38,.32), both are available. They trade off penetration for more expansion. They're more effective against unarmored opponents, less vs armored.
.45 don't need to expand to cause enough damage, while a small, marginal round like the .32 often won't penetrate deep enough to effect a stop if it does expand. It also helps high velocity rounds like the 9mm and .357 more than slower rounds such as the .45.
Supposably they're more dangerous to police officers. It was probably passed before wearing body armor became the standard.
Hollowpoints are NOT usually smaller than their FMJ equivalent. You can get
It might seem odd, but hollowpoints make the most difference in the middle calibers. This is because large rounds like the
A modded hybrid car is almost a non-entity when it comes to what is driving market forces
Actually, I view it as an indicator of demand. It means that there's still a market out there for electric and electric/hybrid cars. The major limiter on pure-electric cars was how long the batteries took to charge, and the fact that you needed special wiring to even keep up with the batteries. That 30 mile drive takes 6-8 hours at 110Vx20Amps. You can charge faster, but then you start needing electrical work and then a special charging station.
In the article I read about it, it seems that a number of auto manufacturers are considering it, at least as an option. It does cost a couple grand, mostly for beefier batteries, as current hybrids only have enough power for a couple miles as battery power is used used more to give you decent power with a smaller, more fuel efficient engine than as a primary moving force.
Heck, for that matter I'm far enough north that I'm already used to plugging my car in at night(block heater).
I believe this will be my last chance to drive an American V8
Big engines never go out of style. Well, maybe I should say big power never goes out of style.
Personally, I've never driven a non-work vehicle bigger than a four cylinder. Of course, I tend to drive small 2 door cars. I love the cheaper price and gas milage.
I don't believe gas prices are the cause of SUV sales decline, I think it's more the fact that people are looking at them as tall station wagons.
I've heard the people moaning at the pump. It's definitly one of the factors. All the articles dinging them on safety is probably also having an effect.
Personally, my 'ideal' car right now would be a pluggable hybrid with AWD. AWD really helps when the roads are icy or snowy.
Very much true. Recycling will really hit it off once it makes economic sense to due so. I fully expect our dumps to eventually be 'mined' for resources when we develop the technology to make it practical.