I've read elsewhere that on AVERAGE wind farms only output 35% of 'installed capacity' per year. So do you think it's intellectually dishonest to say 2.5-megawatt X 240 = 600 Megawatts? I mean, how often and how long will this farm actually put out 600 Megawatts? If you built a nuclear facility rated for 600 MW, i'm pretty sure it can put out 600 MW. However if a wind farm is only expected to put out 210 Megawatts on average over a year, why is it advertised as a 600 Megawatt farm?
Now, for a single HOME, I could see the benefit of having a wind turbine to provide supplemental power to help lower your energy cost/consumption, but on a large scale I don't think wind is reliable enough. It seems to me your house can have a battery bank to store wind power for off peak usage, but that doesn't seem to be the case with a wind farm.
Correct me if i'm wrong, I love the idea of cheap clean power, but it seems that wind might not be practical on a large scale and is better suited to a individual home scale?
I don't want to appear off topic, but will Sayano-Shushenskaya be invoked as a reason not to build hydro-electric power anywhere in the world regardless of differences in design, technology, safety, regulations, or construction methods?
Because I seem to recall a rather famous Russian power plant disaster that gets dragged into every debate on another power source; regardless of it's relevance to the proposed power plants being debated...
I had figured that, but I thought my point was pretty clear. But I can clarify.
At the POINT of launch both systems are vulnerable to failure.
In Flight both systems are vulnerable to hitting another object.
However the biggest benefit to the ballistic method is after launch, if you have a launch device, the rocket may go kaboom (see many famous examples of boosters detonating after launch) where as the launch device for the 'bullet' is still on the ground and not carrying nuclear fuel.
So given that (and possible cost savings of a gun vs rockets) I think it could be a viable solution.
Now, if Uranium hit my hypothetical children, I'd have to give uranium a time out and have it sit in the corner.
Okay, can someone tell me if I'm full of it or if this is a good idea?
The big 'excuse' of why we don't want a reactor in space is because the rocket might blow up and it'll cause cancer..
Why not use a large 'gun' (rail/coil/whatever) to launch the fuel into orbit instead of rockets?! Unlike a rocket which may fail anytime during it's ascent, a ballistic projectile is pretty much fool proof as long as the initial launch works properly and it doesn't hit anything.
But the best part is, I'm pretty sure nuclear fuel can't be damaged by the high G forces of launch so unlike astronauts or complex instruments we don't have to worry about excessive acceleration damaging the payload.
And if you want to get really crazy, if the launcher was electrically powered by a nuclear breeder reactor, you could manufacture the fuel on site instead of having to transport it.
And for the final thought, what if you build a gun like this for EVERY reactor? But instead of putting it into orbit make it powerful enough to launch it into the sun or out of the solar system, or into Jupiter. No more worrying about how to bury used nuclear fuel....
Serious Question. Would this be a way to bypass the HDMI copy protection?
Obviously the HDMI signal is controlled from the cable to the video processor, but after that it's displayed on the LCD screen or whatever. Obviously they can't stop you from cam ripping your own LCD TV but the quality would be rather poor.
So is there a way to remove the LCD panel from a cheap HDTV and directly wire the LCD input cables to a black box that would recognize the raw video feed intended for the LCD, and either save it to hard disk for later recompression or recompress it on the fly?
I know it would not be as convenient as a direct rip and you would loose some quality but I doubt you'd loose anything noticeable. If you can view it, you can copy it, just wait till we all have to get DRM optical implants that blind us when looking at unauthorized movies.
I read that you can mix lead into glass to make leaded glass which is a lot heavier and would sheild against radiation. So why not take all those old car batteries where we need to dispose of the lead, mix it with glass, and make filler for disposal of nuclear waste?
Honestly Humans are willing to destroy life on a global scale here on earth, we are willing to make engineered viruses to stop other animals from reproducing. I dont think we are beyond causing the extinction of a alien microbe, unless this microbe can cure cancer or be used as a powerful weapon...;)
As one poster commented Shrek did this, But he just said 'millions'.. To give a finer idea..
$4 million just for one character in a 98 minute movie.
"After Mike Myers completed his dialogue and Shrek's animation was being completed, Myers decided he wanted to give Shrek a Scottish accent. After hearing a demo, the studio obliged, and an extra four million dollars was spent to reanimate Shrek with the new dialogue."
Now imagine if they had to reanimate all the cast of Final Fantasy, aparently there are like 8 main actors, who knows how many secondary actors, plus if it has english writing or displays they would have to be redone. if each main character cost only 4 million to reanimate, thats still 32 million extra, I think i'd be a lot more. I think this is gonna sell big in japan, dubbed, subtitled, or not, I think they'll get more money in the long run by not reanimating because the costs would prolly outweigh the gains of a 'japanese' version. And it comes down to money in the end unfortunatly.
Re:The risks of explosions aren�t quite so bad
on
Antimatter Propulsion
·
· Score: 1
I"m not sure if your replying to my post or not. But I dont think the 'media' would care how dangerous a anti-matter explosion would actualy be. If the thought of a nuclear-bomb-like explosion would sell newspapers and get ratings they would persue this line of thought, if I remeber correctly some people actualy thought the Cassini probe would be like the end of the world if it burned up, despite the facts. People tend to be pannicky when your dealing with new unknowns..
Okay I'm not sure if anyone has mentioned this or not, but Remeber back in, was it 97?, when seemingly the entire universe was just freaking out over the idea of lauching Plutonium into space in the form of Radioisotope Thermoelectric Generators. Now weather or not the risk was worth it is not my point. My point is, Casssini maybe would have caused a couple of thousand deaths from fallout worst case scenerio, and if I read the article right (as in they may need a kilogram of this stuff) then if this probe/ship messed up ANYTIME during shipment, thats a 43 megaton explosion from what i've heard. Now *I* am not saying we should not advance our technology and explore space, all I am saying is if a little plutonium upsets people imagine how they would protest a anit-matter launch that could prolly destroy the state of Flordia.... Just a thought
Slashdot Mirror
I've read elsewhere that on AVERAGE wind farms only output 35% of 'installed capacity' per year. So do you think it's intellectually dishonest to say 2.5-megawatt X 240 = 600 Megawatts? I mean, how often and how long will this farm actually put out 600 Megawatts? If you built a nuclear facility rated for 600 MW, i'm pretty sure it can put out 600 MW. However if a wind farm is only expected to put out 210 Megawatts on average over a year, why is it advertised as a 600 Megawatt farm?
Now, for a single HOME, I could see the benefit of having a wind turbine to provide supplemental power to help lower your energy cost/consumption, but on a large scale I don't think wind is reliable enough. It seems to me your house can have a battery bank to store wind power for off peak usage, but that doesn't seem to be the case with a wind farm.
Correct me if i'm wrong, I love the idea of cheap clean power, but it seems that wind might not be practical on a large scale and is better suited to a individual home scale?
I don't want to appear off topic, but will Sayano-Shushenskaya be invoked as a reason not to build hydro-electric power anywhere in the world regardless of differences in design, technology, safety, regulations, or construction methods?
Because I seem to recall a rather famous Russian power plant disaster that gets dragged into every debate on another power source; regardless of it's relevance to the proposed power plants being debated...
I had figured that, but I thought my point was pretty clear. But I can clarify.
At the POINT of launch both systems are vulnerable to failure.
In Flight both systems are vulnerable to hitting another object.
However the biggest benefit to the ballistic method is after launch, if you have a launch device, the rocket may go kaboom (see many famous examples of boosters detonating after launch) where as the launch device for the 'bullet' is still on the ground and not carrying nuclear fuel.
So given that (and possible cost savings of a gun vs rockets) I think it could be a viable solution.
Now, if Uranium hit my hypothetical children, I'd have to give uranium a time out and have it sit in the corner.
Okay, can someone tell me if I'm full of it or if this is a good idea?
The big 'excuse' of why we don't want a reactor in space is because the rocket might blow up and it'll cause cancer..
Why not use a large 'gun' (rail/coil/whatever) to launch the fuel into orbit instead of rockets?! Unlike a rocket which may fail anytime during it's ascent, a ballistic projectile is pretty much fool proof as long as the initial launch works properly and it doesn't hit anything.
But the best part is, I'm pretty sure nuclear fuel can't be damaged by the high G forces of launch so unlike astronauts or complex instruments we don't have to worry about excessive acceleration damaging the payload.
And if you want to get really crazy, if the launcher was electrically powered by a nuclear breeder reactor, you could manufacture the fuel on site instead of having to transport it.
And for the final thought, what if you build a gun like this for EVERY reactor? But instead of putting it into orbit make it powerful enough to launch it into the sun or out of the solar system, or into Jupiter. No more worrying about how to bury used nuclear fuel....
Serious Question. Would this be a way to bypass the HDMI copy protection?
Obviously the HDMI signal is controlled from the cable to the video processor, but after that it's displayed on the LCD screen or whatever. Obviously they can't stop you from cam ripping your own LCD TV but the quality would be rather poor.
So is there a way to remove the LCD panel from a cheap HDTV and directly wire the LCD input cables to a black box that would recognize the raw video feed intended for the LCD, and either save it to hard disk for later recompression or recompress it on the fly?
I know it would not be as convenient as a direct rip and you would loose some quality but I doubt you'd loose anything noticeable. If you can view it, you can copy it, just wait till we all have to get DRM optical implants that blind us when looking at unauthorized movies.
I read that you can mix lead into glass to make leaded glass which is a lot heavier and would sheild against radiation. So why not take all those old car batteries where we need to dispose of the lead, mix it with glass, and make filler for disposal of nuclear waste?
Honestly Humans are willing to destroy life on a global scale here on earth, we are willing to make engineered viruses to stop other animals from reproducing. I dont think we are beyond causing the extinction of a alien microbe, unless this microbe can cure cancer or be used as a powerful weapon... ;)
As one poster commented Shrek did this, But he just said 'millions'.. To give a finer idea.. $4 million just for one character in a 98 minute movie. "After Mike Myers completed his dialogue and Shrek's animation was being completed, Myers decided he wanted to give Shrek a Scottish accent. After hearing a demo, the studio obliged, and an extra four million dollars was spent to reanimate Shrek with the new dialogue." Now imagine if they had to reanimate all the cast of Final Fantasy, aparently there are like 8 main actors, who knows how many secondary actors, plus if it has english writing or displays they would have to be redone. if each main character cost only 4 million to reanimate, thats still 32 million extra, I think i'd be a lot more. I think this is gonna sell big in japan, dubbed, subtitled, or not, I think they'll get more money in the long run by not reanimating because the costs would prolly outweigh the gains of a 'japanese' version. And it comes down to money in the end unfortunatly.
I"m not sure if your replying to my post or not. But I dont think the 'media' would care how dangerous a anti-matter explosion would actualy be. If the thought of a nuclear-bomb-like explosion would sell newspapers and get ratings they would persue this line of thought, if I remeber correctly some people actualy thought the Cassini probe would be like the end of the world if it burned up, despite the facts. People tend to be pannicky when your dealing with new unknowns..
Okay I'm not sure if anyone has mentioned this or not, but Remeber back in, was it 97?, when seemingly the entire universe was just freaking out over the idea of lauching Plutonium into space in the form of Radioisotope Thermoelectric Generators. Now weather or not the risk was worth it is not my point. My point is, Casssini maybe would have caused a couple of thousand deaths from fallout worst case scenerio, and if I read the article right (as in they may need a kilogram of this stuff) then if this probe/ship messed up ANYTIME during shipment, thats a 43 megaton explosion from what i've heard. Now *I* am not saying we should not advance our technology and explore space, all I am saying is if a little plutonium upsets people imagine how they would protest a anit-matter launch that could prolly destroy the state of Flordia.... Just a thought