BUT, the poll does not say what the headline claims. This is not surprising. The poll does tell us that millennials prefer capitalism to socialism, and to any other economic system.
The problem isn't really capitalism in itself but the case that there is too much corruption involved.
That is true, and there are no corruption free systems. At least in a demoratic based society, there is some greater ability to root out corruption. In most other systems, it is pretty much impossible.
Anyhow, millennials just want jobs, and a large number will reject whatever system is in place when the economy is no doing well.
By the way, despite your focus on my typing, kW = kilowatt. Watt is the unit. It is a global standard term for power capacity. If is accidently typed KW or Kw, I meant kW. That should have been obvious as well given the discussion, I am not sure what other unit you would have thought would apply, I never seen anyone confused that way before in such a discussion.
COP is not efficiency, it a measure that reflects efficiency. Read this, from the same wiki source you linked to;
While the COP is partly a measure of the efficiency of a heat pump, it is also a measure of the conditions under which it is operating
and if you click on the link for thermal efficiency and look under COP you will find;
The reason for not using the term 'efficiency' is that the coefficient of performance can often be greater than 100%
Efficiency cannot be greater than 100%, hence the reason they included that statement. You can find similar statement elsewhere if you look for them.
But I now think I see where you are confused. Efficiency measures the energy put into and then taken out of the system, the part taken out being in the desired form, in this case heat. In the case of heat pumps, heat energy is being moved, but not created, by the heat pump. The system, by the way, is clearly the heat pump apparatus from heat exchanger to heat exchanger (coils or other, including fans, compressors, etc), that should have been obvious. Energy IN includes the electrical power, and the heat from the external heat source. COP does not include the heat from the external heat source in the calculation. That makes sense for heat pumps for a couple of reasons, one is that it is hard to measure the heat drawn from the environment, and two is that for consumer purposes it is not needed for comparative purposes. So to simplify things they use COP instead of efficiency. A more efficient heat pump will have a higher COP.
A not so perfect example that illustrates this idea is a gas pump. For a few hundred watt-hours, you can fill a gas tank with enough energy to drive a car for hours, expending thousands of times the energy than the pump used. That does not make the pump a thousand percent efficient. You have moved energy, you don't get credit for that when talking efficiency. With a heat pump, efficiency does not include the heat moved, only the energy required to move the heat and any gains or losses in the process.
Ok, enough. You don't have an engineering or physical sciences background, that is clear. You skim google searches and assume you understand what you are reading. You use terms that make no sense like "a Kw of cooling", which any engineer will tell you makes no sense. So forgive me if I have to try and figure out what the heck you think you are talking about. For starters, you don't understand the unit measure of a watt, how to use it in a sentence, and much less how to do engineering comparisons with it. You speak of efficiency but don't understand you must define a system in order to speak efficiency. They you go off about cars rolling downhill in a completely unrelated
You refer to a site that tries to explain Air Conditioning/Heat Pumps in laymans terms but suffers mis-use of units because it leaves off the 'per ton' which only applies on the output side, and assume you are some kind of expert. But yet that site itself does not claim inefficiencies anywhere near 100%, so I'll let you reconcile that with the author of that site. Don't confuse yourself with 'heating' and the heat energy in a volume of air. They are two different things. COP is not efficiency.
Then how would you describe a system that got 4 kW of cooling from 1 kW of power? 4 kW of heating from 1 kW of power?
You should try to explain how you can, and then the basis for it. Theoretically, a system could output at 4KW for 1 hour if it had stored the equivalent energy of 1KW over 4 hours input. That would be 100% efficient, but you don't more out than you put in. If that were possible, all our energy problems would be solved.
But I assume when you say '4KW cooling from 1KW electrical' you don't really understand what you mean, and are mixing terms from two different aspects of a design. You can run a 4 KW motor on a 1 KW power supply, but that motor will only have 1KW of capacity at any given time. The motor is rated 4KW but isn't used at its full rating.
Generating 4kW cooling from 1kW electricity is common for domestic air conditioners. That you are dumb doesn't mean it violates thermodynamics. Learn what a heat pump is and how it works before stupidly correcting others.
KW is not energy or work. KW over time is. You don't get more work out of a system than you put in to it, it would violate the basic laws of physics. You should have paid attention in class.
100% efficiency is the highest energy efficiency achievable, it is the ideal and even this system will not approach 100% efficiency.
Cable TV started without adds since this was a pay service, today you pay and get to watch commercials every few minutes. Looks like we have same is happening here..
OK then, even though the article even says the passed the tests legally, you can go ahead and imagine what you want. You are the one making a fool of yourself by willful ignorance
I'm not a fan of Time Warner Cable already. I'm concerned about Charter taking over.
Same here. The article has this ; "We are confident New Charter will be a leading competitor in the broadband and video markets," the company said in a statement.
Being leader in both seems like a conflict of interest.
The capital for that would have been higher, to make a personal gas-fired power plant.
Actually, gas retrofit of an oil boiler would be very cheap. You make a good point about gas availability, but that is the only factor that would make it a less desirable option from a cost standpoint. Shipping LP would even be a lot cheaper than oil fired.
The savings are clearly comparing the new cost against what they used to pay, not some other option.
So they created an unrealistic test with unrealistic expectations. It is like they designed the test to promote cheating, and oh surprise, manufacturers cheat.
Is is that hard to devise a test that includes actual driving?
They devised a test that was standardized and repeatable and relatively easy to perform. They assigned limits that they thought were reasonable and had a certain margin of error from real world driving. As to motivations, I'm not going to assign any.
I suggest you read the articles, and learn that the results have nothing to do with tests being defeated. You are wasting my tie with this knee-jerk response.
The meaningful questions are does improvement on the lap test predict improvement under real word conditions?
It does not have to mirror real work conditions to be useful.
/quote>
I'm not sure why that is meaningful. A test method and limit should be set with knowledge of the relationship to real world conditions, and reasonable certainty you are keeping actual emissions levels within an expected range.
Also note that the lab test limits were set at a lower level knowing that real world conditions would be worse. So exceeding limits in the real world was actually expected, the question is how much worse is expected.
Limits must be defined in terms of the condition of the test. If testing is done outside those defined conditions, the limits are hard to apply and enforce. Seems like the regulators need to re-define the limits and testing method.
The ASLC will continue to save money and emissions using the more than $1-million setup; the aquarium estimates tens of thousands of dollars in energy savings annually and a carbon output cut of 1.24 million pounds per year.
That make breakeven, not including the cost of money, in multiple decades.
The cost to the ASLC was $118,360. Saving $15k per month, it has an ROI under 1 year.
They state the savings may be as much as 15K in a month, but that is likely only during the mid winter months, there may be little or no savings in other months. Also, the savings are over old oil-fired boilers, and they don't seem to account for the added electrical bill they will see, so I'd say they are being purposefully optimistic with those savings statements (its PR after all). They may have saved more moving to a natural gas system if that was an option.
Slashdot Mirror
BUT, the poll does not say what the headline claims. This is not surprising. The poll does tell us that millennials prefer capitalism to socialism, and to any other economic system.
The problem isn't really capitalism in itself but the case that there is too much corruption involved.
That is true, and there are no corruption free systems. At least in a demoratic based society, there is some greater ability to root out corruption. In most other systems, it is pretty much impossible.
Anyhow, millennials just want jobs, and a large number will reject whatever system is in place when the economy is no doing well.
By the way, despite your focus on my typing, kW = kilowatt. Watt is the unit. It is a global standard term for power capacity. If is accidently typed KW or Kw, I meant kW. That should have been obvious as well given the discussion, I am not sure what other unit you would have thought would apply, I never seen anyone confused that way before in such a discussion.
COP is not efficiency, it a measure that reflects efficiency. Read this, from the same wiki source you linked to;
While the COP is partly a measure of the efficiency of a heat pump, it is also a measure of the conditions under which it is operating
and if you click on the link for thermal efficiency and look under COP you will find;
The reason for not using the term 'efficiency' is that the coefficient of performance can often be greater than 100%
Efficiency cannot be greater than 100%, hence the reason they included that statement. You can find similar statement elsewhere if you look for them.
But I now think I see where you are confused. Efficiency measures the energy put into and then taken out of the system, the part taken out being in the desired form, in this case heat. In the case of heat pumps, heat energy is being moved, but not created, by the heat pump. The system, by the way, is clearly the heat pump apparatus from heat exchanger to heat exchanger (coils or other, including fans, compressors, etc), that should have been obvious. Energy IN includes the electrical power, and the heat from the external heat source. COP does not include the heat from the external heat source in the calculation. That makes sense for heat pumps for a couple of reasons, one is that it is hard to measure the heat drawn from the environment, and two is that for consumer purposes it is not needed for comparative purposes. So to simplify things they use COP instead of efficiency. A more efficient heat pump will have a higher COP.
A not so perfect example that illustrates this idea is a gas pump. For a few hundred watt-hours, you can fill a gas tank with enough energy to drive a car for hours, expending thousands of times the energy than the pump used. That does not make the pump a thousand percent efficient. You have moved energy, you don't get credit for that when talking efficiency. With a heat pump, efficiency does not include the heat moved, only the energy required to move the heat and any gains or losses in the process.
Ok, enough. You don't have an engineering or physical sciences background, that is clear. You skim google searches and assume you understand what you are reading. You use terms that make no sense like "a Kw of cooling", which any engineer will tell you makes no sense. So forgive me if I have to try and figure out what the heck you think you are talking about. For starters, you don't understand the unit measure of a watt, how to use it in a sentence, and much less how to do engineering comparisons with it. You speak of efficiency but don't understand you must define a system in order to speak efficiency. They you go off about cars rolling downhill in a completely unrelated
You refer to a site that tries to explain Air Conditioning/Heat Pumps in laymans terms but suffers mis-use of units because it leaves off the 'per ton' which only applies on the output side, and assume you are some kind of expert. But yet that site itself does not claim inefficiencies anywhere near 100%, so I'll let you reconcile that with the author of that site. Don't confuse yourself with 'heating' and the heat energy in a volume of air. They are two different things. COP is not efficiency.
Then how would you describe a system that got 4 kW of cooling from 1 kW of power? 4 kW of heating from 1 kW of power?
You should try to explain how you can, and then the basis for it. Theoretically, a system could output at 4KW for 1 hour if it had stored the equivalent energy of 1KW over 4 hours input. That would be 100% efficient, but you don't more out than you put in. If that were possible, all our energy problems would be solved.
But I assume when you say '4KW cooling from 1KW electrical' you don't really understand what you mean, and are mixing terms from two different aspects of a design. You can run a 4 KW motor on a 1 KW power supply, but that motor will only have 1KW of capacity at any given time. The motor is rated 4KW but isn't used at its full rating.
Generating 4kW cooling from 1kW electricity is common for domestic air conditioners. That you are dumb doesn't mean it violates thermodynamics. Learn what a heat pump is and how it works before stupidly correcting others.
KW is not energy or work. KW over time is. You don't get more work out of a system than you put in to it, it would violate the basic laws of physics. You should have paid attention in class.
100% efficiency is the highest energy efficiency achievable, it is the ideal and even this system will not approach 100% efficiency.
Cable TV started without adds since this was a pay service, today you pay and get to watch commercials every few minutes. Looks like we have same is happening here..
You are paying Youtube?
Easily avoided, just don't watch the video.
If you ever apply for a job as a movie critic, I'll give you a good reference.
What would be the real long-term downside of global warming?
There are a lot of guesses, but aside from sea level rise there are few certainties.
400% efficient. That's amazing. They have accomplished the impossible.
OK then, even though the article even says the passed the tests legally, you can go ahead and imagine what you want. You are the one making a fool of yourself by willful ignorance
I'm not a fan of Time Warner Cable already. I'm concerned about Charter taking over.
Same here. The article has this ; "We are confident New Charter will be a leading competitor in the broadband and video markets," the company said in a statement.
Being leader in both seems like a conflict of interest.
Client based calendars just don't cut it anymore. They need to just integrate some of the already available cloud calendars.
The capital for that would have been higher, to make a personal gas-fired power plant.
Actually, gas retrofit of an oil boiler would be very cheap. You make a good point about gas availability, but that is the only factor that would make it a less desirable option from a cost standpoint. Shipping LP would even be a lot cheaper than oil fired.
The savings are clearly comparing the new cost against what they used to pay, not some other option.
So they created an unrealistic test with unrealistic expectations. It is like they designed the test to promote cheating, and oh surprise, manufacturers cheat.
Is is that hard to devise a test that includes actual driving?
They devised a test that was standardized and repeatable and relatively easy to perform. They assigned limits that they thought were reasonable and had a certain margin of error from real world driving. As to motivations, I'm not going to assign any.
I suggest you read the articles, and learn that the results have nothing to do with tests being defeated. You are wasting my tie with this knee-jerk response.
The meaningful questions are does improvement on the lap test predict improvement under real word conditions?
It does not have to mirror real work conditions to be useful.
/quote> I'm not sure why that is meaningful. A test method and limit should be set with knowledge of the relationship to real world conditions, and reasonable certainty you are keeping actual emissions levels within an expected range.
Also note that the lab test limits were set at a lower level knowing that real world conditions would be worse. So exceeding limits in the real world was actually expected, the question is how much worse is expected.
Limits must be defined in terms of the condition of the test. If testing is done outside those defined conditions, the limits are hard to apply and enforce. Seems like the regulators need to re-define the limits and testing method.
The ASLC will continue to save money and emissions using the more than $1-million setup; the aquarium estimates tens of thousands of dollars in energy savings annually and a carbon output cut of 1.24 million pounds per year.
That make breakeven, not including the cost of money, in multiple decades.
But, the CO2 heat pumps really aren't new either. Yes, we all know that they are more efficient, we also know they are much more expensive.
The cost to the ASLC was $118,360. Saving $15k per month, it has an ROI under 1 year.
They state the savings may be as much as 15K in a month, but that is likely only during the mid winter months, there may be little or no savings in other months. Also, the savings are over old oil-fired boilers, and they don't seem to account for the added electrical bill they will see, so I'd say they are being purposefully optimistic with those savings statements (its PR after all). They may have saved more moving to a natural gas system if that was an option.
^Correction...the previous heating system was oil-fired boilers, a very costly way to heat to begin with.