You can't use hot water to make tea, just boiling water, so no one in the UK in their right mind would be using hot water for that purpose anyway. You can get specialised boilers for hot drinks that do indeed deliver boiling water, but they do so at the point of delivery for the three weeks they work until full of lime scale.
Which is why British hot water is often not potable, just for washing.
I think they've fixed that in new construction, not sure. Brit/.ers?
For the last 40+ years or more hot water tanks have been closed, lagged units, and these days a lot of houses use on-demand heating, occasionally in conjunction with solar thermal to pre-heat. I had never even heard of this open-topped hot water tank before today.
Whilst it is true that new is new, most read new as more. If a new plant replaces an old one then, assuming the same output capacity, this is a Good Thing (tm) as it will be more efficient, just not as good as replacing it with something even better. But perfect should not be the enemy of better.
It works perfectly well in the UK, and major cities in the USA are also pretty dense. Delivery services already exist in the USA, though. My primary way to shop for groceries is either delivery or order and pick up a pre-picked order. In terms of interaction, I have more interaction with the delivery or collection staff (I've known one for several years) than in store.
It's probably not pay, more time demand. They probably have 0.5 seconds per apple to pick it and put it in the bag, and examining it isn't viable in that time. They don't get a bonus and no one ask you "How do you like them apples?".
Here in the UK the picking and packing service from the local grocery store is pretty fantastic, though. Maybe they are just given a little more time? I have had only one complaint over a substitution of passata for tomato puree, which is minor.
"The Germans" did not exist at that time.
It was an area with perhaps 100 small and larger principals, small kingdoms and earlships.
Despite the success with the Kogge, a trading ship, they were not great sailors anyway.
The fact that "one german" wrote about it, does not mean many german (rulers?) knew about it.
I read that the Pope was informed, following the above (potential new souls)
Heck, it was not even common knowledge 50 years ago in the western world...
Lots of medieval things got lost and were found again, which doesn't mean it wasn't known of, just maybe not considered worthwhile to bother with compared to Rus, India, China. Even Great Britain in the 18th century saw India as more valuable.
The YB-35 has a speed of 393 mph and a load of 50,000 lbs but had issues with vibration. The YB-49 had a speed of about 480 mph but a bomb load of only 16,000 lbs (too little for the H-bomb) and half the required range. The B-36 (mixed power plants) had speed of 435 mph and a bomb load of 72,000 lbs. Basically the Northrop designs were unconventional (high risk) and lacked the required performance. The mixed propulsion RB-49A might have had a chance, but a RB-36 was available without having to support an additional type. with pretty similar performance, and the U2 was in development. The RB-49A cancellation was without reason as the U2 was secret. Basically the YB-35 and 49 failed on their own lack of merits other than as a way to potentially research aircraft that might have had the required performance.
Other nations also looked at flying wing designs from the 30s to the 50s, and the only one that got close was the Avro Vulcan, and even then modified from the original flying wing design.
Whlst it's true that any combustion can end up with some burning of nitrogen and NOx formation, hydrogen can be burned at such a lean concentration, you can get a much lower level of NOx. To be fair, I don't know what the NOx output at a given energy output is compared to diesel, which would be a flaw in my logic, as it might not be any less, but that didn't occur to me at the time I first posted. So I am left with potential egg on my face. But I was assuming a lean hydrogen burn and low NOx.
You don't necessarily have to put the batteries on the trains, though.
It's cheaper. If you put them somewhere else then you need overhead wires or a hazardous third rail to bring power to the trains.
You have to balance that cost against the energy cost of hauling the batteries around all the time. Even with losses in the wires, it might be cheaper long term to run overhead wires, even including maintenance costs. You could reduce the weight of the batteries by using better technology, but it's more expensive, whereas you can use pretty basic deep-cycle batteries on the trackside, or even Tesla cast-offs. But I can understand you might take the least effective option long term to avoid issues with capital financing, even if using overhead wires were cheaper.
Loco stops in a bush? Where on earth do lines run through bushes? Given the safety regime of railways you couldn't even do that, except at a station or maintenance depot where there are lots of witnesses, plus CCTV to prevent vandalism of trains and engines.
Corrosion might be an expense Japan has decided to accept, but with Germany having a large population in the interior, the calculus may be different there.
During the 1973 oil crisis, France made nearly all its electricity from imported oil,
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electricity_sector_in_France#/media/File%3AElectricity_production_by_sources_in_France.png - it was about 30%, not nearly all. Still high, of course.
It might make sense if you have a fuel cell producing electrical power allowing a train to run on hydrogen when that is abundant, or on grid power at other times. Distribution of hydrogen in the required quantities, and storage on a train (due to bulk) might be problematic, though. If you could create something with the energy density of diesel using excess electrical energy it would be much more attractive, and thatcould be burned in a diesel engine, and used to run a generator, much as diesel-electrics operate.
Since 1979, NOAA satellites have been carrying instruments which measure the natural microwave thermal emissions from oxygen in the atmosphere. The intensity of the signals these microwave radiometers measure at different microwave frequencies is directly proportional to the temperature of different, deep layers of the atmosphere.
So, yes they do. They also measure other altitudes, which the surface stations don't.
No, they don't. To determine surface temperature at a point where there are no surface stations requires calibration of readings based on places where there are surface stations. In turned out that they had got this a little wrong and had underestimated warming.
Slashdot Mirror
Legionaries live in water.
Lives not live, else it looks like you are saying that American Legion members are aquatic.
or not use hot water for mixing hot drinks.
You can't use hot water to make tea, just boiling water, so no one in the UK in their right mind would be using hot water for that purpose anyway. You can get specialised boilers for hot drinks that do indeed deliver boiling water, but they do so at the point of delivery for the three weeks they work until full of lime scale.
Which is why British hot water is often not potable, just for washing.
I think they've fixed that in new construction, not sure. Brit /.ers?
For the last 40+ years or more hot water tanks have been closed, lagged units, and these days a lot of houses use on-demand heating, occasionally in conjunction with solar thermal to pre-heat. I had never even heard of this open-topped hot water tank before today.
Also nuclear produces greenhouse gases. During mining, during enrichment, during reactor construction.
Careful bringing facts into the debate. It won't go well.
The original owners generally aren't planning for maintenance
Having worked with a major power company on AI for predictive maintenance for wind turbines, I can tell you that is flat out incorrect.
It's also fewer cooling towers, less piping for steam, smaller turbines that are simpler to replace, fewer rail connections to bring in coal, etc.
Whilst it is true that new is new, most read new as more. If a new plant replaces an old one then, assuming the same output capacity, this is a Good Thing (tm) as it will be more efficient, just not as good as replacing it with something even better. But perfect should not be the enemy of better.
Good luck with that!
It works perfectly well in the UK, and major cities in the USA are also pretty dense. Delivery services already exist in the USA, though. My primary way to shop for groceries is either delivery or order and pick up a pre-picked order. In terms of interaction, I have more interaction with the delivery or collection staff (I've known one for several years) than in store.
You can spend the time saved to go to a coffee shop and meet people.
It's probably not pay, more time demand. They probably have 0.5 seconds per apple to pick it and put it in the bag, and examining it isn't viable in that time. They don't get a bonus and no one ask you "How do you like them apples?".
Here in the UK the picking and packing service from the local grocery store is pretty fantastic, though. Maybe they are just given a little more time? I have had only one complaint over a substitution of passata for tomato puree, which is minor.
"The Germans" did not exist at that time. It was an area with perhaps 100 small and larger principals, small kingdoms and earlships. Despite the success with the Kogge, a trading ship, they were not great sailors anyway.
The fact that "one german" wrote about it, does not mean many german (rulers?) knew about it.
I read that the Pope was informed, following the above (potential new souls)
Heck, it was not even common knowledge 50 years ago in the western world ...
Lots of medieval things got lost and were found again, which doesn't mean it wasn't known of, just maybe not considered worthwhile to bother with compared to Rus, India, China. Even Great Britain in the 18th century saw India as more valuable.
The YB-35 has a speed of 393 mph and a load of 50,000 lbs but had issues with vibration. The YB-49 had a speed of about 480 mph but a bomb load of only 16,000 lbs (too little for the H-bomb) and half the required range. The B-36 (mixed power plants) had speed of 435 mph and a bomb load of 72,000 lbs. Basically the Northrop designs were unconventional (high risk) and lacked the required performance. The mixed propulsion RB-49A might have had a chance, but a RB-36 was available without having to support an additional type. with pretty similar performance, and the U2 was in development. The RB-49A cancellation was without reason as the U2 was secret. Basically the YB-35 and 49 failed on their own lack of merits other than as a way to potentially research aircraft that might have had the required performance.
Other nations also looked at flying wing designs from the 30s to the 50s, and the only one that got close was the Avro Vulcan, and even then modified from the original flying wing design.
I own a small bit of woodland and have lost the deeds. Can I just ask FB for a copy? That would be really handy.
Whlst it's true that any combustion can end up with some burning of nitrogen and NOx formation, hydrogen can be burned at such a lean concentration, you can get a much lower level of NOx. To be fair, I don't know what the NOx output at a given energy output is compared to diesel, which would be a flaw in my logic, as it might not be any less, but that didn't occur to me at the time I first posted. So I am left with potential egg on my face. But I was assuming a lean hydrogen burn and low NOx.
Well, the NOx comes from the air.
Something that burned more efficiently might be cleaner. E.g. H2 burns in air, but without NOx. Silicon is pretty novel,
You would then still have emissions like sooth and NOx.
If you were creating purely synthetic diesel then it might be possible to at least minimise it, but that is a good point.
You don't necessarily have to put the batteries on the trains, though.
It's cheaper. If you put them somewhere else then you need overhead wires or a hazardous third rail to bring power to the trains.
You have to balance that cost against the energy cost of hauling the batteries around all the time. Even with losses in the wires, it might be cheaper long term to run overhead wires, even including maintenance costs. You could reduce the weight of the batteries by using better technology, but it's more expensive, whereas you can use pretty basic deep-cycle batteries on the trackside, or even Tesla cast-offs. But I can understand you might take the least effective option long term to avoid issues with capital financing, even if using overhead wires were cheaper.
Then you have to look at whether using it directly or other forms of storage work better or not.
Loco stops in a bush? Where on earth do lines run through bushes? Given the safety regime of railways you couldn't even do that, except at a station or maintenance depot where there are lots of witnesses, plus CCTV to prevent vandalism of trains and engines.
Corrosion might be an expense Japan has decided to accept, but with Germany having a large population in the interior, the calculus may be different there.
During the 1973 oil crisis, France made nearly all its electricity from imported oil,
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electricity_sector_in_France#/media/File%3AElectricity_production_by_sources_in_France.png - it was about 30%, not nearly all. Still high, of course.
You and your facts! This is slashdot.
It might make sense if you have a fuel cell producing electrical power allowing a train to run on hydrogen when that is abundant, or on grid power at other times. Distribution of hydrogen in the required quantities, and storage on a train (due to bulk) might be problematic, though. If you could create something with the energy density of diesel using excess electrical energy it would be much more attractive, and thatcould be burned in a diesel engine, and used to run a generator, much as diesel-electrics operate.
Just because the lines are electrified doesn't mean that all - or even most - of the trains running on them are
Mostly that is the case, though.
Since 1979, NOAA satellites have been carrying instruments which measure the natural microwave thermal emissions from oxygen in the atmosphere. The intensity of the signals these microwave radiometers measure at different microwave frequencies is directly proportional to the temperature of different, deep layers of the atmosphere.
So, yes they do. They also measure other altitudes, which the surface stations don't.
No, they don't. To determine surface temperature at a point where there are no surface stations requires calibration of readings based on places where there are surface stations. In turned out that they had got this a little wrong and had underestimated warming.