' a rectenna array generates 300 W/m^2 for 24 hours a day
That is possible on the high end, but the topic of this thread was doing so with safe energy levels, and to be safe you need to be a lot closer to the 20 W/M^2 range. You can have a setup with higher levels in the center and lower at the edges of the beam, but when beaming from such a great distance it is difficult to manage such an intensity distribution.
For even 80 W/M^2 average, it would take a receiver surface area of about 3 square miles to produce 600 MW ( the size of a medium fossil plant, just for reference).
But honestly, those stories about people being fired after loosing someone or having health problems are a pretty good reason do the order they did.
Did we ever get the other side of those stories in particular? They sound horrible, inhuman, hard to believe. Just because a company promotes competition among workers does not mean they promote behaviors such as these. One behavior does not cause the other. Workers that feel slighted often exaggerate reality. Companies are not in a legal position to tell their side of the story regarding individual employees for a number of reasons, they can only generically respond (answering my rhetorical question above). And I am sure there are some bad bosses at Amazon, just like other huge companies. I am also sure that just like any company there are people that were let go for not doing a good job but would never admit their own performance was subpar. In these particular cases. We really don't know for sure the whole story.
Should Bezos be expected to NOT continue the style of management that helped make Amazon so successful to start with? Should employees expect the company culture to change or leave if they don't like it? There are no right or wrong answers, IMHO.
What those numbers DON'T take into account is the loss of net-metering, which is a real risk. If too many people go to solar, it will have to go away. If everyone installed solar on their roof and ended up with no electric bill, the power companies would go out of business.
The tax subsidies will also go away long before mass adoption. The governments can't afford giving that much money away. Eventually, people will have to pay their own power bills. To be sustainable, selling to the grid makes more sense done at wholesale rates, not at retail rates.
There is already a the PVWatts calculator at on NREL's website. You input your location, the type and placement of the solar panels and it tells you how much power to expect based on local weather measurements. Since these are the people gathering the data, I can't imagine google's project does anything than access this same database.
http://pvwatts.nrel.gov/
This is the smart way to start, as it has just plain data. The Google project does not rely on this raw data, it appears to be adjusted by the sponsors and have added data. Google and the sponsors are in no hurry to show the data for places where there is no forced buy-back at retail rates, for instance, because that drastically changes the picture.
Local, state and federal subsides vary drastically only a few miles apart. That database would tax googles servers.
That's right. The subsidies are required to make this look good. It is, after all, sponsored by installers. The calculator naturally assumes everything is optimum, and doesn't get very detailed when it comes to additional expenses that may be incurred during installation. It also assumes 2.2% per year rate increases, which is not necessarily going to happen.
I did a spot check on their Redwood Ca numbers. They calculate using solar insolation equivalent to 5 hrs/day, but real numbers are about 4.7 hrs/day.
Sorry, did not come accrosz as a joke, my bad... you know how sd is sometimes.
I was not talking about efficiency. That is not relevent once capacity or rated output is established.
Kw is capacity rating. It indicates the max power at a moment in time. Energy is that power output over a period of time. So, a solar panel generating 1 kw over a few hours while the sun is shining produces less electricity than a coal plant generating 1 kw for the full 24 hour day. The comparitive tool for this is called max capacity factor. Solar at best is about 19 percent, in the most optimal locations. Coal max capacity factor is historically close to 90 percent. In Germany, solar PV real world capacity factor is under 10 percent.
Posting as AC for some degree of anonymity. Knowing what a clearance like a TS/SCI entails, her responding to, and handling classified mails, in her private mail system shows either a complete ignorance of what she took an oath to protect, or complete disregard for her oath. Either is just so troubling.
Her ignorance, lack of good judgement, and carelesness are ecxusable because it is not clear if laws were broken.
That may be "the law", but there are certainly questions as to how it specifically applies. While the law is clear about expectations of privacy in public space, and inside the home, it is not clear on private spaces with certain measures of privacy such as a secluded back yard. There are legal cases that show your expectation of privacy in the front yard is limited, which by implication means your back yard may not be in all cases.
So, you may not like it that the law is not clear enough on this matter.
Is there a law that would prohibit someone from climbing a tree and taking video of you in your back yard? I don't know, but if there is or not, it does not excuse the behavior.
Sharing does not imply I'm doing so for free; just that I am willing to let someone else use resources I own and could otherwise deny the use of...
>
It does imply not doing it for profit or monetary return. And, to your other points, sharing is different from trading, you seem to conflate the two. Borrow boat in return for pizza would be a trade. Borrow boat in return from money would be monetary reimbursement, not a trade or a share.
In a true ride share, the rider would not carry the full expense, but rather share in a portion of it, and both rider and driver would have a common general destination or at least direction.
No, you can't shoot down helicopters. The shooter that shot the drone was charged with endangerment. But I assure you it is illegal to hover over someones yard in a helicopter at the elevation this drone was flying and take video for no reason.
It does not matter what the drone was doing, but what it was capable of doing where it was hovering. Clearly in this case it was taking video.
The legal basis for low flying drones and expectations of privacy has clearly not been established. For aircraft flying over normally, it is quite common sense what to expect.
I am not sure why some are defending the practice of taking video of people in the privacy of their yards when it clearly disturbs those people. Do you think it is acceptable for someone to climb a tree and just start video recording of you in your yard? Doing so from a drone is no different in my opinion. I personally do not think it is nor should be acceptable.
OK, I misread your note. I agree, your privacy can be invaded regardless. I would say that a very rapid pass-over at least invokes less of an invasive posture to a person than a hover. But that comes down to the person.
the primary argument here seems to be over how long the drone hovered. i'm saying that's technically irrelevant. what's relevant is that it's legal to flyover recording video, period.
Is it, under all circumstances? What is the legal definitive of 'flyover' that you are using as the basis? Where is this legality cited?
I find a greater red flag to be a large number of reference sources, without specific denotations of which data is pulled from which source, making it impossible for the reader to establish context in how the source data was established and therefore if it is properly employed. But that is a stray from the topic at hand.
Slashdot Mirror
' a rectenna array generates 300 W/m^2 for 24 hours a day
That is possible on the high end, but the topic of this thread was doing so with safe energy levels, and to be safe you need to be a lot closer to the 20 W/M^2 range. You can have a setup with higher levels in the center and lower at the edges of the beam, but when beaming from such a great distance it is difficult to manage such an intensity distribution.
For even 80 W/M^2 average, it would take a receiver surface area of about 3 square miles to produce 600 MW ( the size of a medium fossil plant, just for reference).
But honestly, those stories about people being fired after loosing someone or having health problems are a pretty good reason do the order they did.
Did we ever get the other side of those stories in particular? They sound horrible, inhuman, hard to believe. Just because a company promotes competition among workers does not mean they promote behaviors such as these. One behavior does not cause the other. Workers that feel slighted often exaggerate reality. Companies are not in a legal position to tell their side of the story regarding individual employees for a number of reasons, they can only generically respond (answering my rhetorical question above). And I am sure there are some bad bosses at Amazon, just like other huge companies. I am also sure that just like any company there are people that were let go for not doing a good job but would never admit their own performance was subpar. In these particular cases. We really don't know for sure the whole story.
Should Bezos be expected to NOT continue the style of management that helped make Amazon so successful to start with? Should employees expect the company culture to change or leave if they don't like it? There are no right or wrong answers, IMHO.
What those numbers DON'T take into account is the loss of net-metering, which is a real risk. If too many people go to solar, it will have to go away. If everyone installed solar on their roof and ended up with no electric bill, the power companies would go out of business.
The tax subsidies will also go away long before mass adoption. The governments can't afford giving that much money away. Eventually, people will have to pay their own power bills. To be sustainable, selling to the grid makes more sense done at wholesale rates, not at retail rates.
Hit pieces on big companies are typically very unbiased and notoriously accurate. The full story has been told. Just accept that you are evil.
There is already a the PVWatts calculator at on NREL's website. You input your location, the type and placement of the solar panels and it tells you how much power to expect based on local weather measurements. Since these are the people gathering the data, I can't imagine google's project does anything than access this same database.
http://pvwatts.nrel.gov/
This is the smart way to start, as it has just plain data. The Google project does not rely on this raw data, it appears to be adjusted by the sponsors and have added data. Google and the sponsors are in no hurry to show the data for places where there is no forced buy-back at retail rates, for instance, because that drastically changes the picture.
Local, state and federal subsides vary drastically only a few miles apart. That database would tax googles servers.
That's right. The subsidies are required to make this look good. It is, after all, sponsored by installers. The calculator naturally assumes everything is optimum, and doesn't get very detailed when it comes to additional expenses that may be incurred during installation. It also assumes 2.2% per year rate increases, which is not necessarily going to happen.
I did a spot check on their Redwood Ca numbers. They calculate using solar insolation equivalent to 5 hrs/day, but real numbers are about 4.7 hrs/day.
Yes, it will all be wonderful.
Oh, by the way, are you aware of the scale of area coverage we are talking about?
Good luck with that.
So they took a perfectly good filter, printed on them with some kind of ink, the sewed them up into a book.
It's just a publicity stunt - and one not worth hearing about.
Exactly. Why not just manufacture the sheets in an optimal size for filtering, and keep the cost lower by not binding them or printing on them?
A bunch of little ones all together, a smaller number of bigger ones, what does it matter? It still must cover a tremendous area.
What is the cost per KW for the build/deployment and resultant cost per KWh for the end user?
Ha hah ha! Cost he says.. Hah! What a funny guy! The answer is of course, "cheaply". After all, its the future.
Yes, very low energy per given area can ensure safety. But that means absolutely huge receivers are required to get a useful power level.
Sorry, did not come accrosz as a joke, my bad... you know how sd is sometimes.
I was not talking about efficiency. That is not relevent once capacity or rated output is established.
Kw is capacity rating. It indicates the max power at a moment in time. Energy is that power output over a period of time. So, a solar panel generating 1 kw over a few hours while the sun is shining produces less electricity than a coal plant generating 1 kw for the full 24 hour day. The comparitive tool for this is called max capacity factor. Solar at best is about 19 percent, in the most optimal locations. Coal max capacity factor is historically close to 90 percent. In Germany, solar PV real world capacity factor is under 10 percent.
Posting as AC for some degree of anonymity. Knowing what a clearance like a TS/SCI entails, her responding to, and handling classified mails, in her private mail system shows either a complete ignorance of what she took an oath to protect, or complete disregard for her oath. Either is just so troubling.
Her ignorance, lack of good judgement, and carelesness are ecxusable because it is not clear if laws were broken.
No. But a cup of feathers is lighter than a cup of iron.
You should learn the difference between kw and kwh and why kwh is used to compare actual electfical production.
Of course shooting a person is very different from shooting an object. The operator of the drone was not shot either.
Just remember, 1 kw coal generates 5 times the electricity in a year that 1 kw solar does.
One may not like it, but that's the law.
That may be "the law", but there are certainly questions as to how it specifically applies. While the law is clear about expectations of privacy in public space, and inside the home, it is not clear on private spaces with certain measures of privacy such as a secluded back yard. There are legal cases that show your expectation of privacy in the front yard is limited, which by implication means your back yard may not be in all cases.
So, you may not like it that the law is not clear enough on this matter.
Is there a law that would prohibit someone from climbing a tree and taking video of you in your back yard? I don't know, but if there is or not, it does not excuse the behavior.
There's nothing at all related to "sharing" about services like Uber.
We could call it 'doing favors', but the prostitution industry has trademarked that term.
Sharing does not imply I'm doing so for free; just that I am willing to let someone else use resources I own and could otherwise deny the use of...
>
It does imply not doing it for profit or monetary return. And, to your other points, sharing is different from trading, you seem to conflate the two. Borrow boat in return for pizza would be a trade. Borrow boat in return from money would be monetary reimbursement, not a trade or a share.
In a true ride share, the rider would not carry the full expense, but rather share in a portion of it, and both rider and driver would have a common general destination or at least direction.
No, you can't shoot down helicopters. The shooter that shot the drone was charged with endangerment. But I assure you it is illegal to hover over someones yard in a helicopter at the elevation this drone was flying and take video for no reason.
It does not matter what the drone was doing, but what it was capable of doing where it was hovering. Clearly in this case it was taking video.
The legal basis for low flying drones and expectations of privacy has clearly not been established. For aircraft flying over normally, it is quite common sense what to expect.
I am not sure why some are defending the practice of taking video of people in the privacy of their yards when it clearly disturbs those people. Do you think it is acceptable for someone to climb a tree and just start video recording of you in your yard? Doing so from a drone is no different in my opinion. I personally do not think it is nor should be acceptable.
OK, I misread your note. I agree, your privacy can be invaded regardless. I would say that a very rapid pass-over at least invokes less of an invasive posture to a person than a hover. But that comes down to the person.
the primary argument here seems to be over how long the drone hovered. i'm saying that's technically irrelevant. what's relevant is that it's legal to flyover recording video, period.
Is it, under all circumstances? What is the legal definitive of 'flyover' that you are using as the basis? Where is this legality cited?
I find a greater red flag to be a large number of reference sources, without specific denotations of which data is pulled from which source, making it impossible for the reader to establish context in how the source data was established and therefore if it is properly employed. But that is a stray from the topic at hand.
References;
1. Me
Now, if they could spot the humor in the joke, I would be quite impressed.