I think your are off by a big factor. A usual home (4 persons) needs an average electrical power of 400W (Europe) to 1000W (US). Add full electrical AC/heating by heat pumps, the power may double or triple. So even assuming for each person average total power 1000W = 1kW yields at most a daily storage capacity of maximum
24kWh = 0.024MWh.
If one includes for each person the industry, transport and government energy expenses, 4 times the previous value is still below your lower value. Obviously not all renewable energies needs to be stored at day for night use. Wind power is intermittent but works day and night, with tendency to average out over continental networks, while hydro power is very good for being used day and night, but also as energy buffer and storage with short and long cycles.
The global power produced by Earth in the form of heat (high entropy energy) amounts to less than 50TW. The average global power received by Earth from the Sun in the form of light (low entropy energy) amounts to 174,000 TW. (wikipedia).
So you are comparing a minuscule heat flow percolating upwards compared to a large photon flow raining downwards. By the way plants show in which direction to look to collect low entropy energy.
Needless to say that you need exceptional spots, like Iceland, concentrating locally geothermal power to be more effective than solar.
The tobacco industry deliberately plotted to kill Amecicans in way larger proportion that the 9/11 Saudis. The food industry via sugar over intake also kills much more people than terrorists. The government kills much more Americans with unjustified wars.
Actually anything threatening the top wealthy 1% is considered as much more dangerous than when threatening the 99% rest.
In the past most people ignored how to read and write. Scribes were upper class people able to help them handling documents and letters, for money of course. Fortunately the obligatory school system has elevated the skills of most people regarding reading and writing so that scribes are no longer necessary. This represents a huge empowering of people, and actually has allowed the emergence of democratic societies. People can read by themselves and *think*: societies then count millions of thinkers instead of a few hundreds, that's a huge progress. In modern societies people lacking such an education are called illiterate, and are considered as handicapped.
A similar concept applies when dealing with quantities and numbers. Nowadays even well educated scholars may struggle with numbers, innumeracy is actually widespread. For many journalists millions and billions seem synonyms. The innumeracy neologism was invented by John Allen Paulos, who in 1988 wrote the book "Innumeracy: Mathematical Illiteracy and its Consequences", a recommended reading. Innumeracy is endemic and actually handicaps many aspects of common life, starting with mastering the house budget. The insufficient proficiency regarding quantities and numbers then leads to more difficulties when dealing with higher math, like algebra and calculus.
In my opinion, the problem with math education is not algebra or calculus, but the insufficient mastering of the elementary math levels, starting with arithmetic. Statistics and probability are in no way simpler conceptually than algebra and calculus. Lowering the general math level has for effect of preventing people to be empowered by math. Since US students already under-perform at the international level, I would say the proposition to reduce math education is a sure recipe to weaken the country on the long term.
The authors estimate the probability that terrestrial planets emerge and find a small number. Fine. The more we understand Earth history, the more we see that there were many singular events leading to an Earth as we have. So it is hardly surprising. It is a bit like asking the a priori probability for humanity to produce Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart. Of course it is tiny.
My guess is that the universe produces many more kinds of planets than the already diverse sample seen in the solar and exoplanet systems, with a huge variety of physical conditions and chemical composition, each allowing nature to explore new phenomena we have not even a starting clue. Some of them may develop phenomena as complex and interesting as life, but too different for our poor imagination to predict them.
The little problem with this option and with the current international laws at sea is that after about 30-40 years ship wrecks are often sunk at some place nobdoy looks at.
The research focuses on risks for life linked to cosmic radiation produced by supernovae (and massive stars in general).
This is only one of the risks. In dense regions of galaxies stars perturb the planetary orbits sufficiently frequently to destroy any climate stability. The solar system has been lucky not to have a star nearing the whole solar system in the last 4 billions years, such that even the outer planet orbits are near from circular.
On the other hand it is not difficult for life to screen strong cosmic radiation, such as in the ocean and deep in the earth crust where most of the biomass exists. So the argument of cosmic radiation killing all life is probably wrong.
Since E=Mc^2 the whole earth gets 1.9 kg/s of sun's mass in the form of ultra-violet, and visible photons. But the earth recycles these photons to longer wavelengths and radiates slightly more mass/s in the form of infrared photons (the excess comes from the heat generated by radioactivity in rocks).
In addition the sun sends matter to Earth in the form of solar wind, mostly protons and electrons and a few helium nuclei send by the solar atmosphere. The average direct mass flux for the whole earth amounts to about 0.75 kg/s.
One could also think about the sun neutrino flux but most of these particles traverse the earth without stopping.
Sorry, but the Standard Model predicts *massless neutrinos*, while oscillations found in experiments prove non-zero masses. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_Model_(mathematical_formulation)#Neutrino_masses/ The extensions to the Standard Model that you mention could accommodate positive masses, but none of these is standard or unambiguously supported by experimental evidences yet.
Has this guy never heard that the mere fact neutrinos have a mass does not fit in the Standard Model, and that plenty of good experimental physics can be made on these particles?
For sure birds *are* solar powered, where do you think the energy for making plants, other animals, and for moving air is coming from?
The point with clean energy is that the time interval between the arrival of solar energy on earth and the moment we use it, it transforms into heat and is finally released into space as infrared radiation should be short with respect to the longest time-scale of our ecosystem, so as to not disturb it too much. In this way the carbon released into the atmosphere remains bounded.
Jet planes use oil which normally does not participate to the ecosystem. Oil needed 100's of millions years to accumulate, if not more, and releasing this carbon in a couple of centuries is not the smartest idea. The solar or not origin of oil is irrelevant.
Birds too fly around the world using clean solar energy. Arctic tern fly twice a year half the globe with no huge ground navigation and support team https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arctic_tern
So big companies corrupt politicians and organisations like FIFA, and nobody complains. Corruption flourishes because some entities propose money to people unable to say no. Both sides should be investigated by justice, but curiously little is done against big companies.
Taking literally the biblical texts is nowadays no longer compatible with the aim of staying intellectually honest. Tons of scientifically based evidences conflict with your unjustified claims (biblical texts are not science based).
Remind some scientifically based evidences:
1) The sky show us plenty of evolving objects at distances that light needs thousands to billions of years to reach us. 2) Any serious geologist observing km thick layers and layers of rocks arrive to the conclusion that most of the stones and fossils must be millions to billions years old and made by processes like sedimentation or volcanic eruptions. 3) Archeologists can date the spread of human ancestors over the Earth back to millions of years. 4) Historians can document the emergence of civilizations from the Neolithic period well before any epochs you mention, such as 8'000-10'000 BCE in Egypt and Mesopotamia. 5) There is no geological evidence for a world wide flooding as described in the Bible. The required amount of water is just not available on Earth.
Believing in biblical chronologies together with not ignoring scientific evidences must lead to the conclusion that the universe was created by a god devious enough to introduce at the same time uncountable false evidences (like all the photons coming from deep space) for the existence of a consistent but fake universe, millions of times older than the biblical one. .
On the deirious mode a really well developped being would eats the whole universe and and in passing eats all gods. Consequence: it would enter an infinitie loop of eating itself, no need to look for food again.
Slashdot Mirror
Do the Dutch or French living within 20 or 100 km from Belgian plants get the delicious pills too?
I think your are off by a big factor. A usual home (4 persons) needs an average electrical power of 400W (Europe) to 1000W (US). Add full electrical AC/heating by heat pumps, the power may double or triple. So even assuming for each person average total power 1000W = 1kW yields at most a daily storage capacity of maximum
24kWh = 0.024MWh.
If one includes for each person the industry, transport and government energy expenses, 4 times the previous value is still below your lower value. Obviously not all renewable energies needs to be stored at day for night use. Wind power is intermittent but works day and night, with tendency to average out over continental networks, while hydro power is very good for being used day and night, but also as energy buffer and storage with short and long cycles.
The global power produced by Earth in the form of heat (high entropy energy) amounts to less than 50TW. The average global power received by Earth from the Sun in the form of light (low entropy energy) amounts to 174,000 TW. (wikipedia).
So you are comparing a minuscule heat flow percolating upwards compared to a large photon flow raining downwards. By the way plants show in which direction to look to collect low entropy energy.
Needless to say that you need exceptional spots, like Iceland, concentrating locally geothermal power to be more effective than solar.
The tobacco industry deliberately plotted to kill Amecicans in way larger proportion that the 9/11 Saudis. The food industry via sugar over intake also kills much more people than terrorists. The government kills much more Americans with unjustified wars.
Actually anything threatening the top wealthy 1% is considered as much more dangerous than when threatening the 99% rest.
In the past most people ignored how to read and write. Scribes were upper class people able to help them handling documents and letters, for money of course.
Fortunately the obligatory school system has elevated the skills of most people regarding reading and writing so that scribes are no longer necessary. This represents a huge empowering of people, and actually has allowed the emergence of democratic societies. People can read by themselves and *think*: societies then count millions of thinkers instead of a few hundreds, that's a huge progress. In modern societies people lacking such an education are called illiterate, and are considered as handicapped.
A similar concept applies when dealing with quantities and numbers. Nowadays even well educated scholars may struggle with numbers, innumeracy is actually widespread. For many journalists millions and billions seem synonyms. The innumeracy neologism was invented by John Allen Paulos, who in 1988 wrote the book "Innumeracy: Mathematical Illiteracy and its Consequences", a recommended reading. Innumeracy is endemic and actually handicaps many aspects of common life, starting with mastering the house budget. The insufficient proficiency regarding quantities and numbers then leads to more difficulties when dealing with higher math, like algebra and calculus.
In my opinion, the problem with math education is not algebra or calculus, but the insufficient mastering of the elementary math levels, starting with arithmetic. Statistics and probability are in no way simpler conceptually than algebra and calculus. Lowering the general math level has for effect of preventing people to be empowered by math. Since US students already under-perform at the international level, I would say the proposition to reduce math education is a sure recipe to weaken the country on the long term.
On scientific matter Forbes is really not the appropriate source.
The authors estimate the probability that terrestrial planets emerge and find a small number. Fine. The more we understand Earth history, the more we see that there were many singular events leading to an Earth as we have. So it is hardly surprising. It is a bit like asking the a priori probability for humanity to produce Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart. Of course it is tiny.
My guess is that the universe produces many more kinds of planets than the already diverse sample seen in the solar and exoplanet systems, with a huge variety of physical conditions and chemical composition, each allowing nature to explore new phenomena we have not even a starting clue. Some of them may develop phenomena as complex and interesting as life, but too different for our poor imagination to predict them.
Of course Windows has a long tradition to cooperate with spying agencies.
The little problem with this option and with the current international laws at sea is that after about 30-40 years ship wrecks are often sunk at some place nobdoy looks at.
https://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=Intel-KNL-Perf-In-Linux-4.5/
The research focuses on risks for life linked to cosmic radiation produced by supernovae (and massive stars in general).
This is only one of the risks. In dense regions of galaxies stars perturb the planetary orbits sufficiently frequently to destroy any climate stability. The solar system has been lucky not to have a star nearing the whole solar system in the last 4 billions years, such that even the outer planet orbits are near from circular.
On the other hand it is not difficult for life to screen strong cosmic radiation, such as
in the ocean and deep in the earth crust where most of the biomass exists. So the argument of cosmic radiation killing all life is probably wrong.
Nuclear and coal have this large problem that they are unable to adapt to demand variation. Instead they just waste the overproduced energy as heat.
You don't need to care how the energy is transfered from the sun to the earth, just that it is conserved.
Since E=Mc^2 the whole earth gets 1.9 kg/s of sun's mass in the form of ultra-violet, and visible photons. But the earth recycles these photons to longer wavelengths and radiates slightly more mass/s in the form of infrared photons (the excess comes from the heat generated by radioactivity in rocks).
In addition the sun sends matter to Earth in the form of solar wind, mostly protons and electrons and a few helium nuclei send by the solar atmosphere. The average direct mass flux for the whole earth amounts to about 0.75 kg/s.
One could also think about the sun neutrino flux but most of these particles traverse the earth without stopping.
Sorry, but the Standard Model predicts *massless neutrinos*, while oscillations found in experiments prove non-zero masses.
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_Model_(mathematical_formulation)#Neutrino_masses/
The extensions to the Standard Model that you mention could accommodate positive masses, but none of these is standard or unambiguously supported by experimental evidences yet.
Has this guy never heard that the mere fact neutrinos have a mass does not fit in the Standard Model, and that plenty of good experimental physics can be made on these particles?
A little consistence would be nice.
For sure birds *are* solar powered, where do you think the energy for making plants, other animals, and for moving air is coming from?
The point with clean energy is that the time interval between the arrival of solar energy on earth and the moment we use it, it transforms into heat and is finally released into space as infrared radiation should be short with respect to the longest time-scale of our ecosystem, so as to not disturb it too much. In this way the carbon released into the atmosphere remains bounded.
Jet planes use oil which normally does not participate to the ecosystem. Oil needed 100's of millions years to accumulate, if not more, and releasing this carbon in a couple of centuries is not the smartest idea. The solar or not origin of oil is irrelevant.
Birds too fly around the world using clean solar energy. Arctic tern fly twice a year
half the globe with no huge ground navigation and support team
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arctic_tern
So big companies corrupt politicians and organisations like FIFA, and nobody complains. Corruption flourishes because some entities propose money to people unable to say no. Both sides should be investigated by justice, but curiously little is done against big companies.
> Once that is done, the value of stingray devices will be moot.
Indeed one can bet that the stingray technology is obsolete and the next surveillance gadgets are ready for use.
Taking literally the biblical texts is nowadays no longer compatible with the aim of staying intellectually honest. Tons of scientifically based evidences conflict with your unjustified claims (biblical texts are not science based).
Remind some scientifically based evidences:
1) The sky show us plenty of evolving objects at distances that light needs thousands to billions of years to reach us.
2) Any serious geologist observing km thick layers and layers of rocks arrive to the conclusion that most of the stones and fossils must be millions to billions years old and made by processes like sedimentation or volcanic eruptions.
3) Archeologists can date the spread of human ancestors over the Earth back to millions of years.
4) Historians can document the emergence of civilizations from the Neolithic period well before any epochs you mention, such as 8'000-10'000 BCE in Egypt and Mesopotamia.
5) There is no geological evidence for a world wide flooding as described in the Bible. The required amount of water is just not available on Earth.
Believing in biblical chronologies together with not ignoring scientific evidences must lead to the conclusion that the universe was created by a god devious enough to introduce at the same time uncountable false evidences (like all the photons coming from deep space) for the existence of a consistent but fake universe, millions of times older than the biblical one. .
Could be filled with a liquid and maintenance made by scuba divers.
What about a liquid filling the room?
On the deirious mode a really well developped being would eats the whole universe and and in passing eats all gods. Consequence: it would enter an infinitie loop of eating itself, no need to look for food again.