Yeah, I can't help but think that there's a lot more to creating a life bearing planet than simply forming from more or less the right components at the right distance from the sun.
I've long held that there's a good chance that the impact that created our moon, even the presence of our freaky-huge moon* was essential for the development of life, or at least complex multicellular life.
If to get life you need: 1. right distance from sun 2. The right mix of materials - CO2**, hydrocarbons, just the right amount of water, etc... 3. Lack of the wrong materials - too much any of a huge list. 4. magnetic field - strong enough to keep the radiation down, but not too large... 5. Active tectonic system. Enough that you get land masses above the water. Oh, and because eruptions help provide chemicals that may be deadly in large doses, but are required at low levels. Plus oceanic vents and such provide more spots for life to evolve(see extremophiles). 6. Huge moon(or other way to get significant and varying tides to act as 'mixers' for early life spots)
etc... On the 'upside', it might mean that there's a lot of planets out there that we could terraform with some effort.
*Seriously. Look at the moon:planet mass ratio for every other planet in the solar system. Only Pluto scored higher, and it was demoted from being a planet. **As far as I know, 'All' of our oxygen was generated by early life.
It seems every week that we get a story about habitability of planets - one saying that life could be in more places than we thought, two saying it's unlikely in areas we previously thought it was.
I'm just sad because the equations seem to be shaping up to quite a distance* between intelligent complex tool using species.
*If you assume they're more or less randomly scattered, the lower the odds per solar system, the longer the median distance between such races/civilizations.
At work we'll get emails with attached powerpoint slide(~4MB) with around two lines of text for this or that event. They don't bother to put any information about the event in the body of the email so we don't have to fire up powerpoint to figure out what they're advertising.
You will do better to use the heat directly in the house.
Why? I don't NEED 350-400F to keep my house warm. 90F might not do it, but 180F certainly does, as you drop the temperature it would just mean my heating system(including the generator) runs for longer periods of time.
Internal combustion engines max out at around 50%, at a far larger size than I'd be capable of using, and for turbines getting that high involves playing tricks with air pressure such that there's not much left. Besides, IC engines require too much maintenance.
The problem with Capstone turbines is that the smallest one they have is 30kw, or 125A@250V. I don't need that large, and it would be interesting work building a heat exchanger capable of taking it's exhaust and drawing most of the heat from it without restricting the flow enough to cause problems with the turbine.
I think you're missing the point, you're trying to maximize electrical generation efficiency. I'm trying to minimize cost. A stirling engine can run with far less maintenance than most turbines and IC engines. In a co-generation mode where I'd be using the heat anyways, if it takes 5 gallons of heating oil to produce 1 unit of electricity, but I get 3.5 units of heat out of it, I'm still good, running at 90% combined efficiency(which is good for oil). The reason to generate electricity this way is that electric energy is more valuable(lower entropy) than heat.
natural gas heating doesn't have a waste heat component,
Actually it does. So long as the exhaust is still above ambient you're 'wasting' heat. Thus the point about condensing heaters - they cool the exhaust to the point that the H2O is condensing out. Causes problems with oil fired boilers though - with oil the condensate is very acidic and will eat components to the point that it's just not worth making them and having to deal with the acid until the unit is quite large.
I've had the idea of converting my truck to some sort of hybrid. I'd put the batteries in under the bed(there's room there). But yes, I've seen plenty of people who don't pay any mind to what would happen in an accident. Nearly a ton of lead-acid batteries in the passenger compartment? Stupid. Even if they avoid there, most cars aren't designed around having nearly a ton of batteries adding mass to the vehicle in an accident. IE it wouldn't be stiff enough to account for the extra momentum and energy of the extra mass.
What sort of percentage would you consider "mainstream"? Tesla is looking to build a $30k car, and there's actually more leafs on the road.
I'll make an assertion: it's not the range so much as it's the cost. People will seriously consider it so long as it's range is enough to cover over 95% of their driving needs.
If this happens, eventually the virus itself goes extinct, because there are no more humans to transmit the virus. The virus's lethality caused it to commit suicide.
'In the infection zone' at that, it doesn't mean that humans are extinct either. Ebola, for example, is so deadly that it tends to burn itself out, and it takes most of a month to kill you.
The recent outbreak has been noted to be one of the less lethal strains seen...
Interesting. I'm seeing a number of youtube videos, but do you have a citation on the efficiency level? What about cost? I've looked into using a stirling engine to generate electricity in a cogeneration fashion - instead of firing a boiler directly, run the burner for a stirling, use the waste heat side to heat the house.
You're kind of disagreeing with me to agree with me. The situation in NYC as regards to 'black cars' and 'taxis' is interesting and a mess of protectionist rackets.
The private cars are not supposed to respond to hails by hand(some do, to the point that the NYPD will occasionally conduct sting operations). That's protected market for taxis. However, the rules on chartering them(IE calling a central dispach and booking a ride from a specific location to a specific destination) are quite slack. So you call that central number and you get a ride. With Uber you do the same thing without the phone call.
Worse, actually. A 250W panel is a MAX 250 watt panel. IE 'Full Sun, at noon, perfectly pointed, on the equator'. Well, between manufacturing variances and the actual physics they might produce a touch more power if you get really crazy*, but if you install 4 250W panels you only need a 1kW inverter.
So it's hardly meaningless. Especially if you consider that a 225W panel the same size as a 250W one indicates that it's less efficient, and you can get 275W panels. 250W are becoming less common than 255 and 260 units.
As for parabolic reflectors, are you talking about a heat system, or concentrated photovoltaic? Because I've only really seen the former though I know the latter exists. I once read about such a system that was used to not only provide heat in the winter but cooling in the summer using a adsorption/absorption chiller.
Parabolic reflectors have particularly high return (35%+, versus 15%-20% of PV panels);
I want to check because the language is odd. Are you talking about efficiency when you say return, or financial(IE return on capital)? Flat PV panels tend to win over reflectors in many cases because they're cheaper per kw - parabolic systems tend to end up more expensive.
*IE you start concentrating sunlight on it via mirrors, cool it(they lose efficiency when too hot), etc...
You might have to set your cutoff below mean or median to account for people with impaired mobility, people with heavy luggage, small children, etc.
You should see the buggies people run around with now. What I'm proposing is saving the roads as much as possible for the special situations(and small children isn't, really).
I used an unusual term - moving walkway/sidewalk is the more common term.
CO2 is a pollutant and is the primary driver of climate change.
It is NOT a pollutant, much like how water isn't - normally. It's only a concern when levels get too high, much like with water- too much in one spot is bad. As they say, the poison is in the dose. Pollutants are those things that you ideally want to reduce to zero.
Not sure where you got the idea that reducing pollution from cars increases CO2.
Not sure why you think it doesn't. Still, quick rundown: The CO2 emissions from a vehicle are pretty much entirely from the fuel it burns. 1 gallon of gasoline = 19.64 pounds of CO2. 22.38 if it's diesel. Assuming a well running car, all of the fuel will be burned. Pollution from the exhaust of an automobile consists of items like SO2, CO, NOx, and particulates. You get rid of the first by having low sulfur fuel. The second by running a lean mixture - plenty of oxygen to burn all the carbon. NOx compounds are tricky in that you get MORE of them by running a lean hot mixture. But that's where the catalytic converter comes in - it uses catalysts to re-react NOx back to O2 and N2, as well as finish burning any remaining CO. Particulates depends on complete burning of the fuel.
All this means that car manufactures aren't just trying to maximize fuel economy - they're tuning the engine to pass emissions, which isn't the most fuel economic.
The situation is most apparent with diesel - the regeneration of the soot trap 'require the engine to consume several gallons' and 'This has been shown to adversely affect the overall fuel economy of vehicles equipped with DPF systems'.
Diesel already costs more in capital costs than gasoline systems. It's also more durable and such, so it does tend to even out. Still the idea with a range extender is that you don't use it much. Which would actually favor diesel technically because it doesn't 'go bad' like gasoline left to sit can, but you still have that capital cost increase. Electric cars are dropping in price very quickly, to the point that buying a more capable EV is competitive with what a diesel range extender would cost.
My response would be that most medallian schemes were set up back when gasoline powered vehicles were just coming into their own. That cities would become as big as they did, that nothing else would have replaced the automobile by now as a transportation system, etc... Didn't really occur to them. The drivers wanted something that wasn't too expensive to enter but allowed them to be assured of continuing to do business. Leasing from the government wasn't assured. Having a permit was. Of course, they quickly became property that actual drivers only lease, but in the beginning yes, taxi drivers and cab companies owned them directly.
Today, I would go with holding a dutch auction for them each year from the government. Put some money towards slideways and elevated walkways between buildings such that taxis aren't as necessary.
Give it another 10 years and we might start seeing 'johnnycab' type automated taxis. A tesla model s already has enough battery power for a 12 hour shift. If I was a major city I'd seriously consider requiring an EV for taxi use just to kill a significant amount of pollution - both air and noise.
If you figure that the average american is willing to walk 1/2 mile before driving, if you extend that range by slideways(so they walk 1/2 miles but actually cover 1), and more direct routes, you can get us walking again - at which point that 1/2 miles will start growing again. If you can make the city dense enough, with enough services provided close enough to any given location, they can actually ditch the vehicle and only use cabs once a blue moon.
Actually, given that you did indeed level an accusation of bias on the basis of being employed by Uber, whether to drive(employee loyalty) or paid to make the comments(astroturf), you're changing the subject here more than he is.
As for the $30 trip, going by memory that would be doing a zone change in London* or maybe a 'short' trip to the airport(extra toll charge for that).
That's the only difference, albeit just a technicality.
"You are technically correct, which is the best kind of correct" - Futurama.
Laws around the world and even in the USA vary, but I'll use NYC as an example. In NYC there is a very precise definition of a "Taxi". If you meet the designation(responding to street hails as opposed to pre-booked pickups), you fall under a raft of regulations that, in many cases, is more about protecting the taxi companies by limiting competition than helping consumers. If you do not meet that designation you're something else, such as a 'livery' car, which traditionally encompasses things like limos and van(chartered bus) service. They have their own rules, but in general are more flexible because they're supposed to handle more situations. Need to move 100 people, hire a bus. What about a dozen? Van. In style? Limo. Crazy rich? Yes, you can hire a professional driver in a Lamborghini or other super-car. What Uber did in NYC was to make the chartering process far faster than it had ever been, to the point that it was more competitive with Taxis, convenience wise, than the old school systems. As people LIKE saving money and still having the convenience, the taxi companies have thus far been unsuccessful in most cities at making them illegal(or count as taxi, which does much the same thing).
As is, requiring a taxi medallion when they're topping $1M is like another $50-100k in expense each year that has to be made up for by the riders. Cost of capital; put $1M in investments and you should clear $50-100k a year from it. If you figure that each driver has 30 fares per 12 hour shift, 2 shifts a day(most medallions are 'rented' to the driver & cab, it never goes out of service), that's 22k rides/year. An extra $2.28-$4.57 a ride just to pay for the medallion. At an average fare of $6(how old is that source? Probably from 2000) that's almost half the cost of the ride!
If he really wants the SLI/crossfire, I'd say bite the bullet and go with water cooling.
Get rid of the multiple hard drives - put those in a NAS elsewhere and get a silent(but fast) SSD. A backup HD that only spins when you're using it is an option.
Obtain a case that fits in, but pay attention to the cooling - 120mm fans are quieter than 80mm while still moving more air. A water cooling system with relaxed/slow speed 120mm and larger fans can be really, really quiet.
Definitely kill any LEDs beyond a status light or two. You want it to emit less light than the old VCRs and DVD players. Stealth is the name of the game.
CO2 isn't a pollutant though there are concerns with releasing too much of it. I'm actually getting irked with the EPA because getting that last 1-2% of pollution is costing serious gas mileage, which translates to more fuel burned which means more CO2 per mile.
Of course, if you look at my posting history you'll see that I'm a major proponent of electric cars and nuclear power plants.
By all means, though, go after the dickheads who modify their vehicles specifically to make more smoke. They are blowing unburned fuel, and they are assholes.
I agree; I would not be surprised if the average such asshole pollutes as much as 10k correctly operating diesel engines every time they 'roll coal'.
Proper response to such dickhead: Confiscate their truck. That will stop it really quickly.
You'll always need a certain amount of grandfathering, but something along the lines of requiring upgrades to commercial vehicles every 5 years, and maybe upgrades to personal ones after 5-10 years might help.
But yeah, if it's ill maintained and therefore polluting more or came from a crappy line that barely passed when new, encourage it's replacement.
This reminds me of what I think is the most important bit - identifying the most polluting cars and getting them off the road(or at least out of the cities).
We're to the point that a California emissions car in the USA on average actually CLEANS the air. It's exhaust has fewer pollutants than what's going in. The problem is now things like older cars, lawn mowers, weed eaters and other small engines. A lawnmower running for an hour can emit more pollution in an hour than a modern car will all month.
Get rid of various exceptions if you have to, but go after the actual sources of pollution. If that's older diesels, so be it.
37 year payoff is 'barely' not worth it? When the panel efficiency starts drooping somewhat at the 20 - 25 year mark? A 250 Watt panel doesn't stay at 250 Watts - it drops over time.
They're still rated for something like 40 years for 70-80% production.
But I missed a rather large math error. At 10 cents a kwh, it's not $4.38/year, it's $43.80/year. That's what I get for not using a calculator for it. At that point it's only 5 years to break even, everything after that is pure profit.
I'm not sure what you're talking about. Right now you can get a 250W panel for around $200. You should be able to generate around 438kWh from it a year(20% capacity factor). Or around $4.38 worth of electricity, which is a 46 year straight payoff(not worth it). If you pay 20 cents like some people, it's only a 23 year payoff(worth it).
Massive screwup on my part - assuming 10cent electricity, it's actually $43.80 worth of electricty a year, which is a 5 year payoff, not including other equipment. Easily worth it.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, I can't help but think that there's a lot more to creating a life bearing planet than simply forming from more or less the right components at the right distance from the sun.
I've long held that there's a good chance that the impact that created our moon, even the presence of our freaky-huge moon* was essential for the development of life, or at least complex multicellular life.
If to get life you need:
1. right distance from sun
2. The right mix of materials - CO2**, hydrocarbons, just the right amount of water, etc...
3. Lack of the wrong materials - too much any of a huge list.
4. magnetic field - strong enough to keep the radiation down, but not too large...
5. Active tectonic system. Enough that you get land masses above the water. Oh, and because eruptions help provide chemicals that may be deadly in large doses, but are required at low levels. Plus oceanic vents and such provide more spots for life to evolve(see extremophiles).
6. Huge moon(or other way to get significant and varying tides to act as 'mixers' for early life spots)
etc... On the 'upside', it might mean that there's a lot of planets out there that we could terraform with some effort.
*Seriously. Look at the moon:planet mass ratio for every other planet in the solar system. Only Pluto scored higher, and it was demoted from being a planet.
**As far as I know, 'All' of our oxygen was generated by early life.
It seems every week that we get a story about habitability of planets - one saying that life could be in more places than we thought, two saying it's unlikely in areas we previously thought it was.
I'm just sad because the equations seem to be shaping up to quite a distance* between intelligent complex tool using species.
*If you assume they're more or less randomly scattered, the lower the odds per solar system, the longer the median distance between such races/civilizations.
At work we'll get emails with attached powerpoint slide(~4MB) with around two lines of text for this or that event. They don't bother to put any information about the event in the body of the email so we don't have to fire up powerpoint to figure out what they're advertising.
You will do better to use the heat directly in the house.
Why? I don't NEED 350-400F to keep my house warm. 90F might not do it, but 180F certainly does, as you drop the temperature it would just mean my heating system(including the generator) runs for longer periods of time.
Internal combustion engines max out at around 50%, at a far larger size than I'd be capable of using, and for turbines getting that high involves playing tricks with air pressure such that there's not much left. Besides, IC engines require too much maintenance.
The problem with Capstone turbines is that the smallest one they have is 30kw, or 125A@250V. I don't need that large, and it would be interesting work building a heat exchanger capable of taking it's exhaust and drawing most of the heat from it without restricting the flow enough to cause problems with the turbine.
I think you're missing the point, you're trying to maximize electrical generation efficiency. I'm trying to minimize cost. A stirling engine can run with far less maintenance than most turbines and IC engines. In a co-generation mode where I'd be using the heat anyways, if it takes 5 gallons of heating oil to produce 1 unit of electricity, but I get 3.5 units of heat out of it, I'm still good, running at 90% combined efficiency(which is good for oil). The reason to generate electricity this way is that electric energy is more valuable(lower entropy) than heat.
natural gas heating doesn't have a waste heat component,
Actually it does. So long as the exhaust is still above ambient you're 'wasting' heat. Thus the point about condensing heaters - they cool the exhaust to the point that the H2O is condensing out. Causes problems with oil fired boilers though - with oil the condensate is very acidic and will eat components to the point that it's just not worth making them and having to deal with the acid until the unit is quite large.
I've had the idea of converting my truck to some sort of hybrid. I'd put the batteries in under the bed(there's room there). But yes, I've seen plenty of people who don't pay any mind to what would happen in an accident. Nearly a ton of lead-acid batteries in the passenger compartment? Stupid. Even if they avoid there, most cars aren't designed around having nearly a ton of batteries adding mass to the vehicle in an accident. IE it wouldn't be stiff enough to account for the extra momentum and energy of the extra mass.
What sort of percentage would you consider "mainstream"? Tesla is looking to build a $30k car, and there's actually more leafs on the road.
I'll make an assertion: it's not the range so much as it's the cost. People will seriously consider it so long as it's range is enough to cover over 95% of their driving needs.
If this happens, eventually the virus itself goes extinct, because there are no more humans to transmit the virus. The virus's lethality caused it to commit suicide.
'In the infection zone' at that, it doesn't mean that humans are extinct either. Ebola, for example, is so deadly that it tends to burn itself out, and it takes most of a month to kill you.
The recent outbreak has been noted to be one of the less lethal strains seen...
Interesting. I'm seeing a number of youtube videos, but do you have a citation on the efficiency level? What about cost? I've looked into using a stirling engine to generate electricity in a cogeneration fashion - instead of firing a boiler directly, run the burner for a stirling, use the waste heat side to heat the house.
You're kind of disagreeing with me to agree with me. The situation in NYC as regards to 'black cars' and 'taxis' is interesting and a mess of protectionist rackets.
The private cars are not supposed to respond to hails by hand(some do, to the point that the NYPD will occasionally conduct sting operations). That's protected market for taxis. However, the rules on chartering them(IE calling a central dispach and booking a ride from a specific location to a specific destination) are quite slack. So you call that central number and you get a ride. With Uber you do the same thing without the phone call.
*shrug*
250W is what, average over the day?
Worse, actually. A 250W panel is a MAX 250 watt panel. IE 'Full Sun, at noon, perfectly pointed, on the equator'. Well, between manufacturing variances and the actual physics they might produce a touch more power if you get really crazy*, but if you install 4 250W panels you only need a 1kW inverter.
So it's hardly meaningless. Especially if you consider that a 225W panel the same size as a 250W one indicates that it's less efficient, and you can get 275W panels. 250W are becoming less common than 255 and 260 units.
As for parabolic reflectors, are you talking about a heat system, or concentrated photovoltaic? Because I've only really seen the former though I know the latter exists. I once read about such a system that was used to not only provide heat in the winter but cooling in the summer using a adsorption/absorption chiller.
Parabolic reflectors have particularly high return (35%+, versus 15%-20% of PV panels);
I want to check because the language is odd. Are you talking about efficiency when you say return, or financial(IE return on capital)? Flat PV panels tend to win over reflectors in many cases because they're cheaper per kw - parabolic systems tend to end up more expensive.
*IE you start concentrating sunlight on it via mirrors, cool it(they lose efficiency when too hot), etc...
I suspect that in at least some jurisdictions this will fall into a close enough to taxi to be taxi category.
Oh no doubt - that's why I said laws vary.
You might have to set your cutoff below mean or median to account for people with impaired mobility, people with heavy luggage, small children, etc.
You should see the buggies people run around with now. What I'm proposing is saving the roads as much as possible for the special situations(and small children isn't, really).
I used an unusual term - moving walkway/sidewalk is the more common term.
CO2 is a pollutant and is the primary driver of climate change.
It is NOT a pollutant, much like how water isn't - normally. It's only a concern when levels get too high, much like with water- too much in one spot is bad. As they say, the poison is in the dose. Pollutants are those things that you ideally want to reduce to zero.
Not sure where you got the idea that reducing pollution from cars increases CO2.
Not sure why you think it doesn't. Still, quick rundown: The CO2 emissions from a vehicle are pretty much entirely from the fuel it burns. 1 gallon of gasoline = 19.64 pounds of CO2. 22.38 if it's diesel. Assuming a well running car, all of the fuel will be burned. Pollution from the exhaust of an automobile consists of items like SO2, CO, NOx, and particulates. You get rid of the first by having low sulfur fuel. The second by running a lean mixture - plenty of oxygen to burn all the carbon. NOx compounds are tricky in that you get MORE of them by running a lean hot mixture. But that's where the catalytic converter comes in - it uses catalysts to re-react NOx back to O2 and N2, as well as finish burning any remaining CO. Particulates depends on complete burning of the fuel.
All this means that car manufactures aren't just trying to maximize fuel economy - they're tuning the engine to pass emissions, which isn't the most fuel economic.
The situation is most apparent with diesel - the regeneration of the soot trap 'require the engine to consume several gallons' and 'This has been shown to adversely affect the overall fuel economy of vehicles equipped with DPF systems'.
Diesel already costs more in capital costs than gasoline systems. It's also more durable and such, so it does tend to even out. Still the idea with a range extender is that you don't use it much. Which would actually favor diesel technically because it doesn't 'go bad' like gasoline left to sit can, but you still have that capital cost increase. Electric cars are dropping in price very quickly, to the point that buying a more capable EV is competitive with what a diesel range extender would cost.
My response would be that most medallian schemes were set up back when gasoline powered vehicles were just coming into their own. That cities would become as big as they did, that nothing else would have replaced the automobile by now as a transportation system, etc... Didn't really occur to them. The drivers wanted something that wasn't too expensive to enter but allowed them to be assured of continuing to do business. Leasing from the government wasn't assured. Having a permit was. Of course, they quickly became property that actual drivers only lease, but in the beginning yes, taxi drivers and cab companies owned them directly.
Today, I would go with holding a dutch auction for them each year from the government. Put some money towards slideways and elevated walkways between buildings such that taxis aren't as necessary.
Give it another 10 years and we might start seeing 'johnnycab' type automated taxis. A tesla model s already has enough battery power for a 12 hour shift. If I was a major city I'd seriously consider requiring an EV for taxi use just to kill a significant amount of pollution - both air and noise.
If you figure that the average american is willing to walk 1/2 mile before driving, if you extend that range by slideways(so they walk 1/2 miles but actually cover 1), and more direct routes, you can get us walking again - at which point that 1/2 miles will start growing again. If you can make the city dense enough, with enough services provided close enough to any given location, they can actually ditch the vehicle and only use cabs once a blue moon.
Actually, given that you did indeed level an accusation of bias on the basis of being employed by Uber, whether to drive(employee loyalty) or paid to make the comments(astroturf), you're changing the subject here more than he is.
As for the $30 trip, going by memory that would be doing a zone change in London* or maybe a 'short' trip to the airport(extra toll charge for that).
*Taxi rules can be weird.
That's the only difference, albeit just a technicality.
"You are technically correct, which is the best kind of correct" - Futurama.
Laws around the world and even in the USA vary, but I'll use NYC as an example. In NYC there is a very precise definition of a "Taxi". If you meet the designation(responding to street hails as opposed to pre-booked pickups), you fall under a raft of regulations that, in many cases, is more about protecting the taxi companies by limiting competition than helping consumers. If you do not meet that designation you're something else, such as a 'livery' car, which traditionally encompasses things like limos and van(chartered bus) service. They have their own rules, but in general are more flexible because they're supposed to handle more situations. Need to move 100 people, hire a bus. What about a dozen? Van. In style? Limo. Crazy rich? Yes, you can hire a professional driver in a Lamborghini or other super-car. What Uber did in NYC was to make the chartering process far faster than it had ever been, to the point that it was more competitive with Taxis, convenience wise, than the old school systems. As people LIKE saving money and still having the convenience, the taxi companies have thus far been unsuccessful in most cities at making them illegal(or count as taxi, which does much the same thing).
As is, requiring a taxi medallion when they're topping $1M is like another $50-100k in expense each year that has to be made up for by the riders. Cost of capital; put $1M in investments and you should clear $50-100k a year from it. If you figure that each driver has 30 fares per 12 hour shift, 2 shifts a day(most medallions are 'rented' to the driver & cab, it never goes out of service), that's 22k rides/year. An extra $2.28-$4.57 a ride just to pay for the medallion. At an average fare of $6(how old is that source? Probably from 2000) that's almost half the cost of the ride!
If he really wants the SLI/crossfire, I'd say bite the bullet and go with water cooling.
Get rid of the multiple hard drives - put those in a NAS elsewhere and get a silent(but fast) SSD. A backup HD that only spins when you're using it is an option.
Obtain a case that fits in, but pay attention to the cooling - 120mm fans are quieter than 80mm while still moving more air. A water cooling system with relaxed/slow speed 120mm and larger fans can be really, really quiet.
Definitely kill any LEDs beyond a status light or two. You want it to emit less light than the old VCRs and DVD players. Stealth is the name of the game.
... Except for all that CO2
CO2 isn't a pollutant though there are concerns with releasing too much of it. I'm actually getting irked with the EPA because getting that last 1-2% of pollution is costing serious gas mileage, which translates to more fuel burned which means more CO2 per mile.
Of course, if you look at my posting history you'll see that I'm a major proponent of electric cars and nuclear power plants.
By all means, though, go after the dickheads who modify their vehicles specifically to make more smoke. They are blowing unburned fuel, and they are assholes.
I agree; I would not be surprised if the average such asshole pollutes as much as 10k correctly operating diesel engines every time they 'roll coal'.
Proper response to such dickhead: Confiscate their truck. That will stop it really quickly.
no crappy engines should be grandfathered.
You'll always need a certain amount of grandfathering, but something along the lines of requiring upgrades to commercial vehicles every 5 years, and maybe upgrades to personal ones after 5-10 years might help.
But yeah, if it's ill maintained and therefore polluting more or came from a crappy line that barely passed when new, encourage it's replacement.
but that's why diesels now have catalysts.
This reminds me of what I think is the most important bit - identifying the most polluting cars and getting them off the road(or at least out of the cities).
We're to the point that a California emissions car in the USA on average actually CLEANS the air. It's exhaust has fewer pollutants than what's going in. The problem is now things like older cars, lawn mowers, weed eaters and other small engines. A lawnmower running for an hour can emit more pollution in an hour than a modern car will all month.
Get rid of various exceptions if you have to, but go after the actual sources of pollution. If that's older diesels, so be it.
37 year payoff is 'barely' not worth it? When the panel efficiency starts drooping somewhat at the 20 - 25 year mark?
A 250 Watt panel doesn't stay at 250 Watts - it drops over time.
They're still rated for something like 40 years for 70-80% production.
But I missed a rather large math error. At 10 cents a kwh, it's not $4.38/year, it's $43.80/year. That's what I get for not using a calculator for it. At that point it's only 5 years to break even, everything after that is pure profit.
I'm not sure what you're talking about. Right now you can get a 250W panel for around $200. You should be able to generate around 438kWh from it a year(20% capacity factor). Or around $4.38 worth of electricity, which is a 46 year straight payoff(not worth it). If you pay 20 cents like some people, it's only a 23 year payoff(worth it).
Massive screwup on my part - assuming 10cent electricity, it's actually $43.80 worth of electricty a year, which is a 5 year payoff, not including other equipment. Easily worth it.
Welp, that changes my figures almost completely. Back to remedial math for me...