In most fussion reactor designs, the neutrons are soaked up by lithium which then undergoes fission to produce heat and fuel. So they are really hybrid fussion/fission reactors.
No matter what the design, you are going to end up isotopes of iodine, strontium, and a few others that are bioactive, that have tiny neutron cross sections and half lifes that will make the waste dangerous for several thousand years. It may not be the “high level” actinide waste but it is very dangerous waste that must be safely stored pretty much indefinitely.
"But in follow-up reporting, The New York Times cited “a few” CDC officials who suggested the move was not meant as an outright ban, but rather, a technique to help secure Republican approval of the 2019 budget by eliminating certain words and phrases. "
If you use these words, your budget may be cut. How is that not a ban?
It is not "hard" to make hydrogen. Hydrogen is made from natural gas. The problems is that natural gas is a better fuel for cars than hydrogen in almost every aspect. It is readily available, you don't have to have super high pressure to get decent energy density, natural gas engines are cheaper to make... Reforming natural gas into hydrogen releases the carbon in natural gas into the atmosphere anyway, so there is no potential reduction in green house gasses. What possible advantage does hydrogen offer?
You forged a doctor's prescription, had it filled, and are now writing about it? Have you talked to a lawyer about this?
And you blame a company for falling for your forgery?
Either you don't really think that it is a big deal that you should require a doctor's permission to buy contacts, or you don't think that forging such a prescription is a big deal. Either way, you probably should not be writing about it.
One HUGE difference between Lithium and oil... the lithium is not used up when the battery reaches the end of its life. Oil is converted to water and carbon dioxide. The lithium remains in the battery. It can be recycled.
"Known Lithium Reserves" is not an estimate on the total amount of lithium on the earth. It is an _very_ conservative estimate of the amount of lithium that can be economically recovered using known, proven sources of lithium.
As lithium prices rise, reserves increase because if becomes economically feasible because it become economically viable to extract lithium from other sources.
As the original poster pointed out, there is a vast amount of lithium in seawater. Seawater is a lousy source of lithium, since seawater is only about 0.6ppm lithium. There are brines out there that are 300ppm lithium. But there is a LOT of seawater.
Lithium is fairly abundant but it is very widely distributed and there are few sources of high-quality "ore". Lithium brines contain 100-300ppm lithium. These are a good economical source of lithium, but the brines are fairly scare. Seawater contains about 0.2ppm lithium. It is not (currently) economical to recover lithium from seawater, but seawater is abundant. Lithium in the earth's crust is estimates to be about 20ppm (about half as abundant as copper, about twice as abundant as lead). If you removed the "water" from seawater, the resulting solids would be about 10ppm lithium. Given the mass of the worlds oceans and the mass of the earths crust, these trace amounts become very significant.
Also keep in mind that these ppm numbers are bases on mass, and lithium is a very light metal. A kg of lithium has a much larger volume than a kilogram of copper or lead.
Lithium can also be recovered from used batteries. The lithium is not "used up" in the process.
The bottom line is that there may be production issues and cost variance for lithium in the short term, but we will never "run out" of lithium to make batteries.
The Apple ][ had a single key reset right up at the top of the keyboard. It was WAY too easy to accidentally press and could seriously screw things up if you were working with floppies.
Zinc is also about 10X heavier than lithium on a per-atom basic. So on a per-atom basis, lithium is actually more abundant than zinc and only 5X as expensive.
I don't believe that I have gotten rid of a car in the last 20 years due to a problem directly related to the engine or transmission. Problems with electronics that lead to the car stranding me on more than one occasion? Yeap! Car just beat to hell? Yeap! Yeap!
What is the most expensive single component in an electric car and what is its estimated lifetime?
Maybe the Mercedes I had was a lemon but 1) Parts were horrifically expensive and hard-to-find. Seriously. One critical part took 10 weeks to get. The stupid car did not even use a standard tire size or a standard battery size. 2) It was dang-near impossible to find anyone to work one it. 3) the thing broke down ALL THE TIME.
My hunch is that your parts dealer-friend went out of business because of the three things listed above. You don't see a lot of older Benz's driving around. I do however, see a lot of other 25+ year old cars running around.
In my experience, round-bowl toilets work much better and take up less room than the elongated bowl toilets. I have never understood the appeal of the elongated bowls.
20 years ago when low-flow toilets were new, Toto was leaps and bound better than anything else. The difference in performance is not so great anymore, but Toto is still relatively expensive.
My LG washing machine is rated as very efficient. I suppose it is, unless I actually want a shirt that does not stink. Then I have to select 'prewash', 'extra water', 'extra rinse' and 'heavy soil'. I also have to give it an extra shot of HE detergent and a good dose of Clorox 2. And the cycle takes 2 hours to run. At least I do not have to wait on the dryer.
Dishwashers these days are even worse than washing machines, but I blame a lot of that on the no-phosphate detergents. The no-phosphate detergents fail to remove food residue and they etch glassware. And it takes 2 hours to run a load of dishes.
The whole green program for appliances is a failure. I cannot think of a single exception.
Cars, HVAC, and LED lights are dramatically more efficient today than they were a few decades ago with few if any negatives.
Two major carcinogen groups ( tobacco specific nitrosamines and tar) should be absent in e-cigarettes. It is puzzling that they would be as harmful as regular cigarettes.
Slashdot Mirror
Lead was widely used as paint pigment in the US in residential housing until the 1970's. Special applications continued long after that.
Lead paint is common in _every_ house built before the mid 1970’s. If you look, you will find it. It is not just an inner city problem.
In most fussion reactor designs, the neutrons are soaked up by lithium which then undergoes fission to produce heat and fuel. So they are really hybrid fussion/fission reactors.
7700/(26+10) =214kg per animal or 472 pounds. Those are some big ass sheep.
And alcohol probably claimed 88,000 lives. That is not news either.
No matter what the design, you are going to end up isotopes of iodine, strontium, and a few others that are bioactive, that have tiny neutron cross sections and half lifes that will make the waste dangerous for several thousand years. It may not be the “high level” actinide waste but it is very dangerous waste that must be safely stored pretty much indefinitely.
"But in follow-up reporting, The New York Times cited “a few” CDC officials who suggested the move was not meant as an outright ban, but rather, a technique to help secure Republican approval of the 2019 budget by eliminating certain words and phrases. "
If you use these words, your budget may be cut. How is that not a ban?
It is not "hard" to make hydrogen. Hydrogen is made from natural gas. The problems is that natural gas is a better fuel for cars than hydrogen in almost every aspect. It is readily available, you don't have to have super high pressure to get decent energy density, natural gas engines are cheaper to make... Reforming natural gas into hydrogen releases the carbon in natural gas into the atmosphere anyway, so there is no potential reduction in green house gasses. What possible advantage does hydrogen offer?
You forged a doctor's prescription, had it filled, and are now writing about it? Have you talked to a lawyer about this?
And you blame a company for falling for your forgery?
Either you don't really think that it is a big deal that you should require a doctor's permission to buy contacts, or you don't think that forging such a prescription is a big deal. Either way, you probably should not be writing about it.
We cannot justify the return on the investment for sending people to Mars and returning them safely. How is that not a lack of money?
One HUGE difference between Lithium and oil... the lithium is not used up when the battery reaches the end of its life. Oil is converted to water and carbon dioxide. The lithium remains in the battery. It can be recycled.
"Known Lithium Reserves" is not an estimate on the total amount of lithium on the earth. It is an _very_ conservative estimate of the amount of lithium that can be economically recovered using known, proven sources of lithium.
As lithium prices rise, reserves increase because if becomes economically feasible because it become economically viable to extract lithium from other sources.
As the original poster pointed out, there is a vast amount of lithium in seawater. Seawater is a lousy source of lithium, since seawater is only about 0.6ppm lithium. There are brines out there that are 300ppm lithium. But there is a LOT of seawater.
We will not and cannot run out of lithium.
Lithium is fairly abundant but it is very widely distributed and there are few sources of high-quality "ore". Lithium brines contain 100-300ppm lithium. These are a good economical source of lithium, but the brines are fairly scare. Seawater contains about 0.2ppm lithium. It is not (currently) economical to recover lithium from seawater, but seawater is abundant. Lithium in the earth's crust is estimates to be about 20ppm (about half as abundant as copper, about twice as abundant as lead). If you removed the "water" from seawater, the resulting solids would be about 10ppm lithium. Given the mass of the worlds oceans and the mass of the earths crust, these trace amounts become very significant.
Also keep in mind that these ppm numbers are bases on mass, and lithium is a very light metal. A kg of lithium has a much larger volume than a kilogram of copper or lead.
Lithium can also be recovered from used batteries. The lithium is not "used up" in the process.
The bottom line is that there may be production issues and cost variance for lithium in the short term, but we will never "run out" of lithium to make batteries.
Sucks to be a PREPA bond holder. Write it off and move on.
A loss of 33K jobs in a month is pretty much in the noise level.
The Apple ][ had a single key reset right up at the top of the keyboard. It was WAY too easy to accidentally press and could seriously screw things up if you were working with floppies.
Ctrl-Alt-Del was an improvement.
Zinc is also about 10X heavier than lithium on a per-atom basic. So on a per-atom basis, lithium is actually more abundant than zinc and only 5X as expensive.
I don't believe that I have gotten rid of a car in the last 20 years due to a problem directly related to the engine or transmission. Problems with electronics that lead to the car stranding me on more than one occasion? Yeap! Car just beat to hell? Yeap! Yeap!
What is the most expensive single component in an electric car and what is its estimated lifetime?
Maybe the Mercedes I had was a lemon but 1) Parts were horrifically expensive and hard-to-find. Seriously. One critical part took 10 weeks to get. The stupid car did not even use a standard tire size or a standard battery size. 2) It was dang-near impossible to find anyone to work one it. 3) the thing broke down ALL THE TIME.
My hunch is that your parts dealer-friend went out of business because of the three things listed above. You don't see a lot of older Benz's driving around. I do however, see a lot of other 25+ year old cars running around.
Math?
4W * 365 days/year * 20 years * 24 hours/day *0.000001MW/ W = 0.7 Megawatt-hours over the panels lifetime. A subsidy of $161.
So are the master tapes digitally recorded and digitally mixed?
In my experience, round-bowl toilets work much better and take up less room than the elongated bowl toilets. I have never understood the appeal of the elongated bowls.
20 years ago when low-flow toilets were new, Toto was leaps and bound better than anything else. The difference in performance is not so great anymore, but Toto is still relatively expensive.
There are no $50 Kohler toilets at Home Depot.
My LG washing machine is rated as very efficient. I suppose it is, unless I actually want a shirt that does not stink. Then I have to select 'prewash', 'extra water', 'extra rinse' and 'heavy soil'. I also have to give it an extra shot of HE detergent and a good dose of Clorox 2. And the cycle takes 2 hours to run. At least I do not have to wait on the dryer.
Dishwashers these days are even worse than washing machines, but I blame a lot of that on the no-phosphate detergents. The no-phosphate detergents fail to remove food residue and they etch glassware. And it takes 2 hours to run a load of dishes.
The whole green program for appliances is a failure. I cannot think of a single exception.
Cars, HVAC, and LED lights are dramatically more efficient today than they were a few decades ago with few if any negatives.
We find more things that contain lead.
Two major carcinogen groups ( tobacco specific nitrosamines and tar) should be absent in e-cigarettes. It is puzzling that they would be as harmful as regular cigarettes.
Very similar to Vaporators, in most respects.
BASIC, the some machine-level cose. First programming class was FORTRAN. Still program in C.