The problem is that when shit goes pear shaped, the last thing that is on people's minds is to aggressively develop a far-reaching space program. They'll be more concerned with tonight's dinner.
When you talk about "we" have to leave the earth, I assume you are talking about a handful of lucky few. We're not going to save the billions of sick and dirt poor bastards, right ?
Even if you wanted to go to another star, it is probably a smarter plan to wait for better propulsion technology. Any chemical rocket that we could launch in the next few decades will be overtaken by a nuclear rocket we'll launch in the next century (assuming humanity still exists in a prosperous society then).
Well, there's Mars and other planets, and the sun. And while the Moon has no atmosphere, there's still the Moon itself to study. Outside the solar system, there's nothing but vast emptiness.
I love how the first reaction is to come up with a disadvantage that affects 0.01% of the population. Simple solution: cars that don't have 4 wheels can't be parked by the robot and they'll send you to the regular lot.
100ms is the default, but longer periods are possible. And while the transmitter may take 5x as much power, it only needs to be on for 1 ms, so you're still saving power. The reply should come almost immediately (only microseconds of gap), so the receiver only needs to be on for a very short time, assuming there's no response.
I have one neighbor that for some insane reason named his after his address. 123 Johnson road
Even worse, I have a neighbor who has his house number plainly visible right next to his front door, and the name of the street is clearly marked at the intersection. Total nutcase, if you ask me. Anybody who knows his address can just go and visit him.
Solar is not a 100% replacement for base load, but in a country like the USA, there are plenty of areas with 90% sunny days. With a good interconnected grid, you can get even closer to 100%. The remainder can be provided by a peak load plant or by storage. In combination with a weather forecast that can give you a decent head start on when to power up the peak power generators, that should be enough to cover most needs.
A large part of the peak power consumption coincides with the daylight times, so there's plenty of low hanging fruit. Beyond that, you'll need storage, but it doesn't make sense to pick a storage option that uses CO2 if you plan to release it again during the night time. In that case, any other storage option would also work, and probably with better than 2% efficiency.
I'm talking about a coal plant generating 10 units of CO2 for a given amount of electricity, and then adding PV panels that generate the same amount of electricity to scrub 1 unit of CO2. You're still left with 9 units of CO2. On the other hand, if you shut down the coal plant, and use the PV panels to generate the same amount of electricity, you've saved all 10 units.
But not every plant is suitable. It's rather pointless to grow some weeds or grasses and let them decay a few years later. For a quick glance, it looks like the 6% figure comes from ideal circumstances, but without extensive help, most places in the world are lacking water and basic nutrients such as nitrogen, phosphorous and potassium for optimal growth.
On the other hand, trees need plenty of fresh water and nutrients. In places where these are available, we often remove the trees to clear the area for food production. I don't think this is going to improve any time soon. High tech solar plants can be set up in the otherwise useless deserts.
By the way, your 6% number seems rather high. Which tree is that ?
We also need much more power during the day, so until you've replaced all daytime peak load with solar (or other low-CO2 source) there's not much need for storage. However, if you wanted storage, a good idea would be to make a smart grid + electric vehicles. The vehicles would automatically choose to charge when power is cheap, or discharge into the grid when power is expensive and the battery is full.
Slashdot Mirror
The problem is that when shit goes pear shaped, the last thing that is on people's minds is to aggressively develop a far-reaching space program. They'll be more concerned with tonight's dinner.
When you talk about "we" have to leave the earth, I assume you are talking about a handful of lucky few. We're not going to save the billions of sick and dirt poor bastards, right ?
One is CAT6, the other is a POTS wire.
The problem is that only laymen have a wide variety of views, while scientist are mostly share the same view.
Even if you wanted to go to another star, it is probably a smarter plan to wait for better propulsion technology. Any chemical rocket that we could launch in the next few decades will be overtaken by a nuclear rocket we'll launch in the next century (assuming humanity still exists in a prosperous society then).
Well, there's Mars and other planets, and the sun. And while the Moon has no atmosphere, there's still the Moon itself to study. Outside the solar system, there's nothing but vast emptiness.
It looks like someone is confusing anti-US with anti-Iraq-war.
Outside the solar system is nothing but cold hard vacuum in all directions. Why would you want to go there ?
On the other hand, this robot valet is cheap and simple to install, so it can be a good choice for upgrading an existing parking garage.
I love how the first reaction is to come up with a disadvantage that affects 0.01% of the population. Simple solution: cars that don't have 4 wheels can't be parked by the robot and they'll send you to the regular lot.
100ms is the default, but longer periods are possible. And while the transmitter may take 5x as much power, it only needs to be on for 1 ms, so you're still saving power. The reply should come almost immediately (only microseconds of gap), so the receiver only needs to be on for a very short time, assuming there's no response.
Of course, with a directional antenna, it's pretty easy to find the street address of an access point.
I have one neighbor that for some insane reason named his after his address. 123 Johnson road
Even worse, I have a neighbor who has his house number plainly visible right next to his front door, and the name of the street is clearly marked at the intersection. Total nutcase, if you ask me. Anybody who knows his address can just go and visit him.
The phone is broadcasting it over wifi.
In order to receive the beacons you would have to keep the receiver powered up for longer times, wasting battery.
What's the point of digging up coal, and at the same time bury charcoal ? It's almost the same stuff.
If this is interesting information, it has already been copied from the Google server to somebody's personal computer.
Solar is not a 100% replacement for base load, but in a country like the USA, there are plenty of areas with 90% sunny days. With a good interconnected grid, you can get even closer to 100%. The remainder can be provided by a peak load plant or by storage. In combination with a weather forecast that can give you a decent head start on when to power up the peak power generators, that should be enough to cover most needs.
A large part of the peak power consumption coincides with the daylight times, so there's plenty of low hanging fruit. Beyond that, you'll need storage, but it doesn't make sense to pick a storage option that uses CO2 if you plan to release it again during the night time. In that case, any other storage option would also work, and probably with better than 2% efficiency.
If you don't have the PV panels to reduce coal, you also don't have them to generate the formic acid.
I'm talking about a coal plant generating 10 units of CO2 for a given amount of electricity, and then adding PV panels that generate the same amount of electricity to scrub 1 unit of CO2. You're still left with 9 units of CO2. On the other hand, if you shut down the coal plant, and use the PV panels to generate the same amount of electricity, you've saved all 10 units.
It would be cheaper to use electric vehicles and PV panels.
But not every plant is suitable. It's rather pointless to grow some weeds or grasses and let them decay a few years later. For a quick glance, it looks like the 6% figure comes from ideal circumstances, but without extensive help, most places in the world are lacking water and basic nutrients such as nitrogen, phosphorous and potassium for optimal growth.
On the other hand, trees need plenty of fresh water and nutrients. In places where these are available, we often remove the trees to clear the area for food production. I don't think this is going to improve any time soon. High tech solar plants can be set up in the otherwise useless deserts. By the way, your 6% number seems rather high. Which tree is that ?
We also need much more power during the day, so until you've replaced all daytime peak load with solar (or other low-CO2 source) there's not much need for storage. However, if you wanted storage, a good idea would be to make a smart grid + electric vehicles. The vehicles would automatically choose to charge when power is cheap, or discharge into the grid when power is expensive and the battery is full.