The wage is maybe 1/4 of the cost of producing the burger, as there are the costs of heating and lighting the restaurant, rent and franchising fees, and ingredients and the energy needed to cook them. So doubling the wage from $7.80 to $15 for 100 burgers an hour probably increases the cost of each burger by $0.15.
During the rest of the day you're doing a lot fewer
And they have fewer people on duty as it's quieter. The thing that kills is the fixed costs during quiet periods unless you are selling enough during the busy periods.
Wouldn't 0.001c make it 4000 years? That's basically neolithic to now, comparing to us. You'd either need to be able to build more habitat as you went or have male multi-tentacled beings of the 'life, Jim, but not as we know it' variety doing particularly unprodigious duty.
There's no intention of getting the speed up to even a reasonable fraction of the speed of light. You need to be going at about the speed of the drift to harvest it, and to avoid being hit by stuff.
Indeed, but that means the existence is pretty much entirely between star systems, unless a society made extended stops there (which it might). It's true that the density is unknown.Would there be sufficient at high enough atomic numbers to replace components for a space-faring race faster than it wore out? It is a good topic for science fiction, of course, provided you load the dice and say that it is, but for the purposes of the story throw in potential peril. But unless you could reasonably assume that the density of material ahead was going to be sufficient it would seem awfully risky to head out into the while blue (or rather, black) yonder.
If you assumed very different sort of lifeforms to those we have on earth, or at least us, perhaps it becomes more plausible, e.g. something like an intelligent tree with the lifetime of a bristlecone pine that thinks very slowly and needs few additional resources once grown. It's really hard to conceptualise how that works, though.
Or you'd be sandblasted by dust at a similar speed. When you're moving fast you need a really clear trajectory. Go any faster and even gas becomes a problem. It may be a vacuum to you, but when you're moving at 25% the speed of light relative to it
I was imagining something more like 0.01 to 0.1c, but it would be a problem even at 0.01c. But you might imagine that some form of electromagnetic deflection shield might work for such things, but then unless that works for something the size of a pebble it doesn't work either, as you are still not going to be able to dodge a pebble at 0.01c, and it would pack a heck of a punch. And that's about a 500 year trip between two near stars 5 light years apart and 499.97 for those on the craft. But a 0.01kg pebble would have energy of 4x10^14J... Which is about 100kT TNT equivalent if I've got that right.
Given the distances from oort cloud to oort cloud (the nearest to two sets of rich resources, even if relatively sparse) without warp drive, and assuming you could get a ship up to a reasonable fraction of the speed of light it's still generations of travel. Granted, from the perspective of the occupants and the fusion drive its a little bit shorter, but you are still likely talking of the order of magnitude of 100 years or more. And that's assuming that not only can you get a ship up to, say, 0.05 or 0.1c quickly enough for it to get travel times down that much, and could protect the vessel from destruction by a tiny speck of space debris.
Men are far more action oriented (think shoot first ask questions later), while women are more likely to be of the "we need to consider all options" group.
Men are also culturally conditioned to act like that, and woman also. So saying that men and women tend to behave that way doesn't necessarily say anything about any innate qualities.
Perhaps there is more to the system than the simplistic model - like the impact of clouds, for instance?
You do realise that clouds are modelled, don't you. And you do also realise that Hansen's projections from 1988, for what is very close to the RCP 8.5 emissions profile we've actually seen have been very accurate. So now you need to explain why you think that the models, which have been accurate over the last 30 years are somehow not accurate.
The fact it's doubled, and we've seen nothing more than temperatures around the time of the 1930s...
It's much warmer than the 1930s. What evidence do you have for it being no warmer (temperature records for just the USA don't count as the USA is a very small proportion of the globe).
0.25 is a pretty old capacity factor. It's generally much better now due to better designed blades, better management of individual turbines (turning them into the wind better, predictive maintenance) and better modelling of groups of turbines to avoid them causing vortices downstream given a range of wind directions.
They are putting quite a lot of wind turbines just off the coast in Scotland and Wales. Distributing that power to the rest of the UK isn't that difficult as there is an extensive grid in existence. It's relatively unusual for wind turbines to be in totally remote locations, and TFA is more an argument for either increasing the capacity of the link to the mainland or more connected (no pun intended) thinking in terms of grid links and turbines, but that's pretty much the way it is now done anyway.
Fuel cells are about 50% efficient, so the 11MJ/kg hydrogen tank produces about 5.5MJ/kg at the wheel (assuming no other losses). A good diesel or petrol car is about 30% efficient, so it's producing 9MJ/kg at the wheel, based on fuel and containment weights. You'd have to take into account the overall vehicle efficiency, so weight of transmission, engine, fuel cell, overhead of heating and cooling, etc., to make a full comparison fully fair. You might get some improvement for hydrogen if using a fuel cell as it could use an electric drive train that could be shared with electric cars in a fleet.
476MJ in 38kg, plus the mass of the hydrogen, about 3.7kg for the hydrogen. So that's 476/(38+3.7)=11MJ/kg, compared to petrol, with a tank, of about 30MJ/kg. It's not going to win against denser fuels.
They may have too much power in the Orkneys but unless it is transported to the mainland it's not necessarily particularly useful for the generation of hydrogen, except for the Orkneys, as the islands are remote. The issue is more than a grid hookup to the mainland is required so the Orkneys can sell the energy to mainland Scotland, and that's likely to be easier to manage than a plant to compress and pipe hydrogen to the mainland where it wouldn't currently have an obvious use, or filling up ships with bottles of the stuff.
Hey, I'm all for continuing to use gas and diesel! It's a great source. I am a firm believer that we are experiencing climate change, but that it is dominated by natural cycles - our little bit of CO2 in the air is not a driver of much of anything natural
CO2 has pretty much doubled. By what mechanism does that not have the effect now it had in the past, and not the one demonstrated by physics?
And if you need 700+ kg of tank to store your hydrogen - you're doing it wrong. Here's a massive 850L tank that would be equivalent energy storage to about 4800 kg of batteries - and it weighs 215 kg. Not even close.
Assuming that's just the weight of the tank, it contains 60kg of liquid hydrogen. So the energy contained is 60*142MJ in 215+60kg, so the actual energy density is 31MJ/kg. For petrol that's still about 180L, or 40 gallons, which is not really typical of the typical car. So if you scale it down by a factor of 2.5 to a more typical size, the petrol tank will weigh only a few kg, so petrol density will fall to maybe that 31MJ/kg, but the storage of hydrogen will be less efficient as the surface area of the tank will be relatively greater. So in terms of energy density, taking into account containment, hydrogen's a bit worse than petrol. Not hugely so, but significantly. Then you have to take into account the need to carry around about 80kg of containment for a car, which is an extra person always in the car, which will affect MPG, plus the size required and the extra drag induced.
This is not to say hydrogen isn't viable, just that it's not nearly as good as you are suggesting in terms of energy density.
Currently most hydrogen is created from methane, so turning it back into methane seems fairly pointless. If you could create hydrogen from water and create other fuels with it, employing carbon, then methane may not be the best choice either as it also needs to be compressed to provide decent volumetric storage, even after it has been produced. You'd really want to go for longer chain molecules for storage and room temperature, but then you lose benefits such as potentially lower pollution, but then burning hydrogen in air still results in NOx which is now recognised as an issue. You're better off working on improving electric cars from an efficiency and pollution perspective.
It's one way to deal with intermittency, but the requirement can be offset with a balance of renewables and continental-scale HVDC too, demand shaping, storage, and some residual generation from other sources, for example natural gas, hydroelectric and perhaps nuclear to provide an assured baseline such as the reduced demand overnight when solar does not generate and there is a chance wind will not.
And just like no woman ever thought of going to the moon no woman has ever thought anything like "How do I conduct a study and present the results effectively for the study on infectious diseases?" or "Radium - how does that work?" or "I wonder what the structure of DNA is", or "What do those signals from outer space mean?". Oh, my bad, they have.
I'm aware of people using domestic radiator systems in an experimental way, especially when they have their own personal server farms at home as that was the root of the joke.
What they do is look at the moon, look at the rate of cratering there, and then look at the number of craters on Earth at a specific age, and then look at subduction rates which are part of the mechanism that removes evidence of craters. This gives them an estimate of the rate of cratering in the past. They are not actually as dumb as you imagine.
Slashdot Mirror
from firing an arrow from a bow
The GP did not say it was the arrow that made the noise.
During the rest of the day you're doing a lot fewer
And they have fewer people on duty as it's quieter. The thing that kills is the fixed costs during quiet periods unless you are selling enough during the busy periods.
Who the heck is drinking corrosive liquids?
Wouldn't 0.001c make it 4000 years? That's basically neolithic to now, comparing to us. You'd either need to be able to build more habitat as you went or have male multi-tentacled beings of the 'life, Jim, but not as we know it' variety doing particularly unprodigious duty.
There's no intention of getting the speed up to even a reasonable fraction of the speed of light. You need to be going at about the speed of the drift to harvest it, and to avoid being hit by stuff.
Indeed, but that means the existence is pretty much entirely between star systems, unless a society made extended stops there (which it might). It's true that the density is unknown.Would there be sufficient at high enough atomic numbers to replace components for a space-faring race faster than it wore out? It is a good topic for science fiction, of course, provided you load the dice and say that it is, but for the purposes of the story throw in potential peril. But unless you could reasonably assume that the density of material ahead was going to be sufficient it would seem awfully risky to head out into the while blue (or rather, black) yonder.
If you assumed very different sort of lifeforms to those we have on earth, or at least us, perhaps it becomes more plausible, e.g. something like an intelligent tree with the lifetime of a bristlecone pine that thinks very slowly and needs few additional resources once grown. It's really hard to conceptualise how that works, though.
Or you'd be sandblasted by dust at a similar speed. When you're moving fast you need a really clear trajectory. Go any faster and even gas becomes a problem. It may be a vacuum to you, but when you're moving at 25% the speed of light relative to it
I was imagining something more like 0.01 to 0.1c, but it would be a problem even at 0.01c. But you might imagine that some form of electromagnetic deflection shield might work for such things, but then unless that works for something the size of a pebble it doesn't work either, as you are still not going to be able to dodge a pebble at 0.01c, and it would pack a heck of a punch. And that's about a 500 year trip between two near stars 5 light years apart and 499.97 for those on the craft. But a 0.01kg pebble would have energy of 4x10^14J... Which is about 100kT TNT equivalent if I've got that right.
Given the distances from oort cloud to oort cloud (the nearest to two sets of rich resources, even if relatively sparse) without warp drive, and assuming you could get a ship up to a reasonable fraction of the speed of light it's still generations of travel. Granted, from the perspective of the occupants and the fusion drive its a little bit shorter, but you are still likely talking of the order of magnitude of 100 years or more. And that's assuming that not only can you get a ship up to, say, 0.05 or 0.1c quickly enough for it to get travel times down that much, and could protect the vessel from destruction by a tiny speck of space debris.
Men are far more action oriented (think shoot first ask questions later), while women are more likely to be of the "we need to consider all options" group.
Men are also culturally conditioned to act like that, and woman also. So saying that men and women tend to behave that way doesn't necessarily say anything about any innate qualities.
I have seen very little evidence for women being more or less insecure than men.
Perhaps there is more to the system than the simplistic model - like the impact of clouds, for instance?
You do realise that clouds are modelled, don't you. And you do also realise that Hansen's projections from 1988, for what is very close to the RCP 8.5 emissions profile we've actually seen have been very accurate. So now you need to explain why you think that the models, which have been accurate over the last 30 years are somehow not accurate.
The fact it's doubled, and we've seen nothing more than temperatures around the time of the 1930s...
It's much warmer than the 1930s. What evidence do you have for it being no warmer (temperature records for just the USA don't count as the USA is a very small proportion of the globe).
0.25 is a pretty old capacity factor. It's generally much better now due to better designed blades, better management of individual turbines (turning them into the wind better, predictive maintenance) and better modelling of groups of turbines to avoid them causing vortices downstream given a range of wind directions.
They are putting quite a lot of wind turbines just off the coast in Scotland and Wales. Distributing that power to the rest of the UK isn't that difficult as there is an extensive grid in existence. It's relatively unusual for wind turbines to be in totally remote locations, and TFA is more an argument for either increasing the capacity of the link to the mainland or more connected (no pun intended) thinking in terms of grid links and turbines, but that's pretty much the way it is now done anyway.
Fuel cells are about 50% efficient, so the 11MJ/kg hydrogen tank produces about 5.5MJ/kg at the wheel (assuming no other losses). A good diesel or petrol car is about 30% efficient, so it's producing 9MJ/kg at the wheel, based on fuel and containment weights. You'd have to take into account the overall vehicle efficiency, so weight of transmission, engine, fuel cell, overhead of heating and cooling, etc., to make a full comparison fully fair. You might get some improvement for hydrogen if using a fuel cell as it could use an electric drive train that could be shared with electric cars in a fleet.
476MJ in 38kg, plus the mass of the hydrogen, about 3.7kg for the hydrogen. So that's 476/(38+3.7)=11MJ/kg, compared to petrol, with a tank, of about 30MJ/kg. It's not going to win against denser fuels.
They may have too much power in the Orkneys but unless it is transported to the mainland it's not necessarily particularly useful for the generation of hydrogen, except for the Orkneys, as the islands are remote. The issue is more than a grid hookup to the mainland is required so the Orkneys can sell the energy to mainland Scotland, and that's likely to be easier to manage than a plant to compress and pipe hydrogen to the mainland where it wouldn't currently have an obvious use, or filling up ships with bottles of the stuff.
Hey, I'm all for continuing to use gas and diesel! It's a great source. I am a firm believer that we are experiencing climate change, but that it is dominated by natural cycles - our little bit of CO2 in the air is not a driver of much of anything natural
CO2 has pretty much doubled. By what mechanism does that not have the effect now it had in the past, and not the one demonstrated by physics?
And if you need 700+ kg of tank to store your hydrogen - you're doing it wrong. Here's a massive 850L tank that would be equivalent energy storage to about 4800 kg of batteries - and it weighs 215 kg. Not even close.
Assuming that's just the weight of the tank, it contains 60kg of liquid hydrogen. So the energy contained is 60*142MJ in 215+60kg, so the actual energy density is 31MJ/kg. For petrol that's still about 180L, or 40 gallons, which is not really typical of the typical car. So if you scale it down by a factor of 2.5 to a more typical size, the petrol tank will weigh only a few kg, so petrol density will fall to maybe that 31MJ/kg, but the storage of hydrogen will be less efficient as the surface area of the tank will be relatively greater. So in terms of energy density, taking into account containment, hydrogen's a bit worse than petrol. Not hugely so, but significantly. Then you have to take into account the need to carry around about 80kg of containment for a car, which is an extra person always in the car, which will affect MPG, plus the size required and the extra drag induced.
This is not to say hydrogen isn't viable, just that it's not nearly as good as you are suggesting in terms of energy density.
Hydrogen has about 142 MJ per kg, about 3X that of diesel and gasoline.
Yes, but the issue is MJ/litre, not per kg in a practical sense for creating cars.
Currently most hydrogen is created from methane, so turning it back into methane seems fairly pointless. If you could create hydrogen from water and create other fuels with it, employing carbon, then methane may not be the best choice either as it also needs to be compressed to provide decent volumetric storage, even after it has been produced. You'd really want to go for longer chain molecules for storage and room temperature, but then you lose benefits such as potentially lower pollution, but then burning hydrogen in air still results in NOx which is now recognised as an issue. You're better off working on improving electric cars from an efficiency and pollution perspective.
Hint, more solar and wind means natural gas.
It's one way to deal with intermittency, but the requirement can be offset with a balance of renewables and continental-scale HVDC too, demand shaping, storage, and some residual generation from other sources, for example natural gas, hydroelectric and perhaps nuclear to provide an assured baseline such as the reduced demand overnight when solar does not generate and there is a chance wind will not.
And just like no woman ever thought of going to the moon no woman has ever thought anything like "How do I conduct a study and present the results effectively for the study on infectious diseases?" or "Radium - how does that work?" or "I wonder what the structure of DNA is", or "What do those signals from outer space mean?". Oh, my bad, they have.
I'm aware of people using domestic radiator systems in an experimental way, especially when they have their own personal server farms at home as that was the root of the joke.
It was a joke.
What they do is look at the moon, look at the rate of cratering there, and then look at the number of craters on Earth at a specific age, and then look at subduction rates which are part of the mechanism that removes evidence of craters. This gives them an estimate of the rate of cratering in the past. They are not actually as dumb as you imagine.
You don't think the rate of destruction of old craters might have been taken into account?