Ok, you buy that cheap crap and sell to your friends. I'll stick with what has been proven to work for me. Those spotlights would be useless in my attic.
Read the post I was responding to originally. You are missing the context of the discussion. There is plenty of "hype" regarding the payback for LED bulbs, but in reality that payback is not achievable for a large number of use cases.
Regardless, incandescent bulbs have been more like $0.50 each, or even less. Why would I want to pay more than double for no benefit?
If you have a brain, you got rid of those fucking things more than 5 years ago.
It would be a pretty stupid thing to buy and expensive LED or other bulb to put in a crawlspace, or attic, or even a closet. Payback will never happen. Not enough energy used to make a difference either.
A 15% efficient cell mounted in a vertical position probably produces less per area than a 10% efficient cell mounted in an optimal position. And since 15% seems to be "optimistic", its just hard to see unless the price is way less than anything we've seen to date.
Right. This technology looks like a way to make less efficient PV cells, mounted in less efficient configurations, at a likely greater cost. Now, if you could get the cost down extremely low and have high durability, it might not matter that vertical mounting is not efficient. But it would seem to be more cost effective to make an opaque siding instead.
Yeah, deadly dose within minutes they said.....but all the suspects were released from the hospital with no apparent problems. Granted, there could be longer term impacts, but it goes to show how much radiation fears can be overblown. Typically you get the worst case scenario description in the press.
These limitations might keep the others from getting too scared;
"The drawback with G.fast is that it will only work over short distances, so 1Gbps will only be possible at distances of up to about 100 meters. The technology is being designed to work at distances up to 250 meters, though transmission speed is slower at that distace. "
OK, that makes a bit more sense, but using that explanation (although I don't see your 15 minutes in the article), you could also say 1 car can power the building for 2 minutes. Its still hardly 'powering the building' in the sense most would interpret it.
Good. The court will come back with the inevitable conclusion they are not people, precedence will be set, and we won't have to see this stupidity again. And best of all, New Yorkers will pay for it all.
Slashdot Mirror
Ok, you buy that cheap crap and sell to your friends. I'll stick with what has been proven to work for me. Those spotlights would be useless in my attic.
^No, there is absolutely no safety case or requirement for those bulbs use cases. Halogen bulbs get hot too.
Read the post I was responding to originally. You are missing the context of the discussion. There is plenty of "hype" regarding the payback for LED bulbs, but in reality that payback is not achievable for a large number of use cases.
Regardless, incandescent bulbs have been more like $0.50 each, or even less. Why would I want to pay more than double for no benefit?
Doesn't change the present analysis.
At a higher cost, no doubt.
If you have a brain, you got rid of those fucking things more than 5 years ago.
It would be a pretty stupid thing to buy and expensive LED or other bulb to put in a crawlspace, or attic, or even a closet. Payback will never happen. Not enough energy used to make a difference either.
Compressed air energy storage compression & re-use is very inefficient.
A 15% efficient cell mounted in a vertical position probably produces less per area than a 10% efficient cell mounted in an optimal position. And since 15% seems to be "optimistic", its just hard to see unless the price is way less than anything we've seen to date.
Right. This technology looks like a way to make less efficient PV cells, mounted in less efficient configurations, at a likely greater cost. Now, if you could get the cost down extremely low and have high durability, it might not matter that vertical mounting is not efficient. But it would seem to be more cost effective to make an opaque siding instead.
I thought they invented polynomials.
Hey, they have until 2015 to work out all these problems.
Yeah, deadly dose within minutes they said.....but all the suspects were released from the hospital with no apparent problems. Granted, there could be longer term impacts, but it goes to show how much radiation fears can be overblown. Typically you get the worst case scenario description in the press.
These limitations might keep the others from getting too scared;
"The drawback with G.fast is that it will only work over short distances, so 1Gbps will only be possible at distances of up to about 100 meters. The technology is being designed to work at distances up to 250 meters, though transmission speed is slower at that distace. "
Hah! ......but this car battery scheme is not an efficiency improvement. Actually, they use more energy overall.
They use more energy in total. It is cheaper since more of it is off-peak. Thus, they save money but contribute more to global warming.
Also, remember these power rates in Japan are much higher than most other places, so the economics don't universally apply.
OK, that makes a bit more sense, but using that explanation (although I don't see your 15 minutes in the article), you could also say 1 car can power the building for 2 minutes. Its still hardly 'powering the building' in the sense most would interpret it.
Well, they could be using company cars.
few business want to spend $120k on batteries.
I wonder how much power they would save by investing $120K in energy efficiency improvements? My guess in >2%
Looks like 6 cars can offset about 2% of this office's power usage. Hardly 'powering' the whole office.
Nope, summary just says 'box', which could have simply meant one of the outer enclosures. But thanks for following up.
Considering that chimps are as intelligent (at least) as two and three year olds,.....
Really? Maybe some really stupid 3 year olds.
Good. The court will come back with the inevitable conclusion they are not people, precedence will be set, and we won't have to see this stupidity again. And best of all, New Yorkers will pay for it all.
France, UK, Japan, etc. could have done it instead ... if they had tried.
Guess they were leading from behind.
I'm ready to move on to the 'internet of cloudy things"