Yes solar has maintenance costs. So does Coal and everything else. Coal requires maintenance of the entire grid where 'technically' solar can be built locally to need and then not have any of the maintenance of the grid. Obviously that's not realistic, but coal simply can't build small plants that sit on your roof. Solar can be scaled to local usage and reduce the need for as much large scale grid capacity - or the need to upgrade the current grid since we need to transport less energy from far away plants.
What solar doesn't have is emissions or fuel costs and the latter of those 2 for coal isn't exactly cheap. Coal doesn't pay for all of the former yet but when they have to sequester all that CO2, how much do you think that's going to cost?
Or the cost to store energy for usage at the intermittent time of renewable sources; i.e. night for solar. Fair to include that but it still isn't going to come close to the cost of sequestering all the CO2 produce by coal. And of course global warming costs such as have to move Miami in a century or build a 10 foot sea wall around NYC.
The short term for solar is that it makes us need smaller/fewer coal plants because it helps offset the peak usage during the...wait for it...daytime. So it also makes our current coal 'cheaper' since we need less of it. It's why google/ups/fedex are installing massive solar arrays on their warehouses. It significantly reduces their power costs and the need to run even larger lines in from outside.
Ah so no explanation. Yes I understand the full loop.
I assume you're rambling about the Cap and Trade carbon credits? Is there something wrong with providing an incentive to emit less as part of the goal of no emissions?
Fortunately mankind's socialistic nature has so far saved us from the extreme ills of rampant capitalism. It's not exactly a rosy future unless we start standing up for ourselves again though...
You demonstrate why we need better educations systems anyway.
*Breathing* does not contribute to CO2 in any harmful way. It's a natural cycle as that CO2 was removed from the environment within the last year (or 20 once Twinkies are back!). Same for burning wood. It was recently taken out of the atmosphere and put back, net zero over a timeframe the earth can handle and still keep us alive.
Adding millions of years worth of CO2 to the atmosphere in just a century is much much different.
And other energy sources need to have their long term costs included in their prices...like CO2 release. Solar will shine once you charge for CO2 release and the damage it causes.
Interesting:) I suppose I thought of gravitational waves as something moving through the medium that is gravity rather than gravity itself flowing.
I agree that the influence of gravity extends almost to infinity...the OP stated that it didn't have any effect. I was saying that yes it's infinite, but as you say, at some point becomes so negligible as to be meaningless compared to the rest of the universe's exertion on the object.
As for ever completely escaping the sun's influence you're totally wrong - the sphere of the sun's influence is expanding at the speed of light.
You're the second poster here to imply that and I'm curious what you mean. It really flies in the face of known science.
There's the 'heliosphere' the point at which the solar wind stops flowing because the pressure from the interstellar region matches the outward pressure of the solar wind.
The only thing leaving the sun at the speed of light is the light itself. It doesn't exert a significant force on Voyager, and anyway is moving 'out' not in.
The gravity of the Sun exerts effect but it isn't 'expanding' at any speed. It simply exists and exerts effect over an area known as it's gravity well. The edge of this gravity well is the point at which the effects of the Sun are no longer the dominant force on the object.
You wouldn't argue that Voyager is still under the Earth's influence would you? i.e. Voyager left Earth's gravity well. It will eventually do the same thing to the Sun and as this article says that time may be now. Obviously if it didn't have enough velocity it would fall back towards the Sun but at 10 miles per second I believe it's got enough velocity to escape the Sun's gravity.
Agreed. He also said there was a limit to the Sun's influence. It simply can't be that it never leaves the Sun's influence and also that the gravitational effect of the Sun is limited.
sun's gravitational influence is expanding outward at the speed of light and Voyager is moving outward at less than the speed of light
Gravity doesn't 'move' at any speed. It exerts it's effect over distance but it doesn't 'move'. And yes if going fast enough you can escape the influence of a star or a planet. It means you get out of the gravity well of the object.
Just like it takes a certain amount of energy to get a satellite out of earths influence, it takes a certain amount of energy to get it out of the Sun's influence. There is a point where the effects of the mass of the rest of the universe are greater than the effect of the sun's mass. That's the extent of the Sun's realistic influence; yes it technically exerts effect at any distance but as I originally said, it is so small as to be negligible.
there is a limit to the distance at which it has any effect.
Voyager will never reach a point of "zero influence"
Pick one, it can't be both. You could perhaps argue that Voyager doesn't have the velocity to escape the Sun, but I believe simple physics proves that it does have the necessary velocity.
As the Sun is only 4.6 billion years old, any point in the universe more than 4.6 billion light years away feels no gravitational effect from the Sun whatsoever.
Not true. The mass of the solar system was already here 4.7 billion years ago and is now just a bit more concentrated, but it didn't substantially change. So it was having the same effect before and the same effect after. Just a very very very small effect at a 4.6 billion light year distance. So small as to not be noticeable compared to other much closer sources of gravitational force.
Likewise, the universe is expanding at an increasing rate when simple gravity would state it should be slowing down. This over distances much greater than 4.6 billion light years. If gravity has a limited distance effect, this would not be the case.
Gravity works over practically infinite distance. It just gets so small as to be negligible. There's a point where the gravity from the Sun is no longer as powerful as the gravity from the rest of the universe and I'd say that's the point at which it's SOI realistically ends.
Voyager is moving *much* faster than it did when it left Earth. Using gravitational slingshots around the various gas giants allows it to add significant speed. I believe it's something like 10 miles per second currently.
Dangerous implications? You bet. It's one of the reasons why people opposed UEFI secure boot initiative.
It doesn't realistically affect your modding your own stuff for your own use though that's still technically illegal. It's just something that *could* be used against you should they discover it and it become convenient. Sort of like the posted speed limit on roads. Almost nobody does it, so everybody can technically be pulled over at any time because they are technically breaking the law. And yes car analogies are wildly overused and never really appropriate but I thought it sounded good:)
Not having an Xbox I'll leave a little room for 'possibly' it not having an initial 'you agree to...' screen, but just a little. That is so absolutely common place that it would be mind boggling if it didn't have something like that at startup the first time or even just something in the box...
Nope. You won't get 'prosecuted' for doing your own mods, but it's still just as illegal:) The violation is copyright itself but the 'do not circumvent' clause of the DMCA.
This is a crucial thing. Yes I license software, but do I 'purchase' a license to the software? In which case I should be able to sell that 'purchase' to someone else no?
Same thing for a digital download of music. Yes I licensed the music, but I 'purchased' that license. As such I should be able to sell that license to someone else.
But then common sense tends to cloud my judgement on such legalistic crap.
Actually, I would say not - you purchased the Xbox, right?
The physical thing called an Xbox, yes you purchased it.
The software that it runs? Not so much, that my friend is most definitely licensed and if modify any of it, including the boot software, you're in violation. I'm also pretty sure that removing the chip that contains the software and placing a new chip on still qualifies as changing the software that you 'licensed'.
Indeed, if you aren't running the AC, then yes AC is going to be cheaper for you:)
Mostly I was commenting on the details of the tech. AC is using electricity to pump against the temperature gradient (while generating heat), heating is just pushing combusted heat around the house; i.e. I don't have to vent the heat created by using the process.
Pricing of heat vs AC certainly affects the costs but the true energy costs are always going to be greater for AC since it's pumping uphill rather than just adding heat to an environment that needs heat.
Slashdot Mirror
I see you didn't catch the actual point.
Yes solar has maintenance costs. So does Coal and everything else. Coal requires maintenance of the entire grid where 'technically' solar can be built locally to need and then not have any of the maintenance of the grid. Obviously that's not realistic, but coal simply can't build small plants that sit on your roof. Solar can be scaled to local usage and reduce the need for as much large scale grid capacity - or the need to upgrade the current grid since we need to transport less energy from far away plants.
What solar doesn't have is emissions or fuel costs and the latter of those 2 for coal isn't exactly cheap. Coal doesn't pay for all of the former yet but when they have to sequester all that CO2, how much do you think that's going to cost?
nightly generation capacity
Or the cost to store energy for usage at the intermittent time of renewable sources; i.e. night for solar. Fair to include that but it still isn't going to come close to the cost of sequestering all the CO2 produce by coal. And of course global warming costs such as have to move Miami in a century or build a 10 foot sea wall around NYC.
The short term for solar is that it makes us need smaller/fewer coal plants because it helps offset the peak usage during the...wait for it...daytime. So it also makes our current coal 'cheaper' since we need less of it. It's why google/ups/fedex are installing massive solar arrays on their warehouses. It significantly reduces their power costs and the need to run even larger lines in from outside.
Yes because coal plants magically spring out of Unicorn butts?
Everything has start up manufacturing/infrastructure costs. It always costs more to 'operate' something at a grid type scale than it does to make it.
Lots of CO2 gets emitted producing all the steel and concrete needed for a coal plant. And then it keeps on emitting throughout its life.
Solar has no fuel costs and no emissions in operation. Lemme know when can do that.
Smug away...lol :)
Ah so no explanation. Yes I understand the full loop.
I assume you're rambling about the Cap and Trade carbon credits? Is there something wrong with providing an incentive to emit less as part of the goal of no emissions?
Facts are stubborn things.
All fuels have problems. Some are up front and others are a century in the making....
negative CO2 release
Do explain....this should be good...lol
Fortunately mankind's socialistic nature has so far saved us from the extreme ills of rampant capitalism. It's not exactly a rosy future unless we start standing up for ourselves again though...
You demonstrate why we need better educations systems anyway.
*Breathing* does not contribute to CO2 in any harmful way. It's a natural cycle as that CO2 was removed from the environment within the last year (or 20 once Twinkies are back!). Same for burning wood. It was recently taken out of the atmosphere and put back, net zero over a timeframe the earth can handle and still keep us alive.
Adding millions of years worth of CO2 to the atmosphere in just a century is much much different.
And other energy sources need to have their long term costs included in their prices...like CO2 release. Solar will shine once you charge for CO2 release and the damage it causes.
Coal isn't economically viable either unless you subsidize it. Like allowing unlimited CO2 emissions...
Charge coal to handle that and it fast becomes unprofitable.
Interesting :) I suppose I thought of gravitational waves as something moving through the medium that is gravity rather than gravity itself flowing.
I agree that the influence of gravity extends almost to infinity...the OP stated that it didn't have any effect. I was saying that yes it's infinite, but as you say, at some point becomes so negligible as to be meaningless compared to the rest of the universe's exertion on the object.
Happy to get over it, right after he submits to a UN trial for war crimes...
And the GOP admits that the policies favored during his Administration caused the financial collapse.
But I won't hold my breath...
As for ever completely escaping the sun's influence you're totally wrong - the sphere of the sun's influence is expanding at the speed of light.
You're the second poster here to imply that and I'm curious what you mean. It really flies in the face of known science.
There's the 'heliosphere' the point at which the solar wind stops flowing because the pressure from the interstellar region matches the outward pressure of the solar wind.
The only thing leaving the sun at the speed of light is the light itself. It doesn't exert a significant force on Voyager, and anyway is moving 'out' not in.
The gravity of the Sun exerts effect but it isn't 'expanding' at any speed. It simply exists and exerts effect over an area known as it's gravity well. The edge of this gravity well is the point at which the effects of the Sun are no longer the dominant force on the object.
You wouldn't argue that Voyager is still under the Earth's influence would you? i.e. Voyager left Earth's gravity well. It will eventually do the same thing to the Sun and as this article says that time may be now. Obviously if it didn't have enough velocity it would fall back towards the Sun but at 10 miles per second I believe it's got enough velocity to escape the Sun's gravity.
sun's gravitational influence is expanding outward at the speed of light and Voyager is moving outward at less than the speed of light
Gravity doesn't 'move' at any speed. It exerts it's effect over distance but it doesn't 'move'. And yes if going fast enough you can escape the influence of a star or a planet. It means you get out of the gravity well of the object.
Just like it takes a certain amount of energy to get a satellite out of earths influence, it takes a certain amount of energy to get it out of the Sun's influence. There is a point where the effects of the mass of the rest of the universe are greater than the effect of the sun's mass. That's the extent of the Sun's realistic influence; yes it technically exerts effect at any distance but as I originally said, it is so small as to be negligible.
there is a limit to the distance at which it has any effect.
Voyager will never reach a point of "zero influence"
Pick one, it can't be both. You could perhaps argue that Voyager doesn't have the velocity to escape the Sun, but I believe simple physics proves that it does have the necessary velocity.
As the Sun is only 4.6 billion years old, any point in the universe more than 4.6 billion light years away feels no gravitational effect from the Sun whatsoever.
Not true. The mass of the solar system was already here 4.7 billion years ago and is now just a bit more concentrated, but it didn't substantially change. So it was having the same effect before and the same effect after. Just a very very very small effect at a 4.6 billion light year distance. So small as to not be noticeable compared to other much closer sources of gravitational force.
Likewise, the universe is expanding at an increasing rate when simple gravity would state it should be slowing down. This over distances much greater than 4.6 billion light years. If gravity has a limited distance effect, this would not be the case.
Gravity works over practically infinite distance. It just gets so small as to be negligible. There's a point where the gravity from the Sun is no longer as powerful as the gravity from the rest of the universe and I'd say that's the point at which it's SOI realistically ends.
Voyager is moving *much* faster than it did when it left Earth. Using gravitational slingshots around the various gas giants allows it to add significant speed. I believe it's something like 10 miles per second currently.
Use an Outlook email rule to move the notices to your Trash. Cuz Outlook will likely outlast Voyager... ;-)
Lets all remember George Bush and the GOP proposed cutting this truly amazing program to save a paltry $4 million per year...
Dangerous implications? You bet. It's one of the reasons why people opposed UEFI secure boot initiative.
:)
It doesn't realistically affect your modding your own stuff for your own use though that's still technically illegal. It's just something that *could* be used against you should they discover it and it become convenient. Sort of like the posted speed limit on roads. Almost nobody does it, so everybody can technically be pulled over at any time because they are technically breaking the law. And yes car analogies are wildly overused and never really appropriate but I thought it sounded good
Not having an Xbox I'll leave a little room for 'possibly' it not having an initial 'you agree to...' screen, but just a little. That is so absolutely common place that it would be mind boggling if it didn't have something like that at startup the first time or even just something in the box...
Nope. You won't get 'prosecuted' for doing your own mods, but it's still just as illegal :) The violation is copyright itself but the 'do not circumvent' clause of the DMCA.
This is a crucial thing. Yes I license software, but do I 'purchase' a license to the software? In which case I should be able to sell that 'purchase' to someone else no?
Same thing for a digital download of music. Yes I licensed the music, but I 'purchased' that license. As such I should be able to sell that license to someone else.
But then common sense tends to cloud my judgement on such legalistic crap.
Actually, I would say not - you purchased the Xbox, right?
The physical thing called an Xbox, yes you purchased it.
The software that it runs? Not so much, that my friend is most definitely licensed and if modify any of it, including the boot software, you're in violation. I'm also pretty sure that removing the chip that contains the software and placing a new chip on still qualifies as changing the software that you 'licensed'.
Indeed, if you aren't running the AC, then yes AC is going to be cheaper for you :)
Mostly I was commenting on the details of the tech. AC is using electricity to pump against the temperature gradient (while generating heat), heating is just pushing combusted heat around the house; i.e. I don't have to vent the heat created by using the process.
Pricing of heat vs AC certainly affects the costs but the true energy costs are always going to be greater for AC since it's pumping uphill rather than just adding heat to an environment that needs heat.