150,000 NOK in Norway have definitely less purchasing power than their countervalue in dollars in the US or any EU country; AFAIK the only country more expensive than Norway is Iceland, and maybe (some areas of) Japan.
I think this is mostly about principles than money, 150000 is not really a bunch. My 54-sq. meters flat (here in Norway) is worth 840,000 NOK, and I got quite a deal at buying that. Iceberg salad is 20-30 NOK for about half a kilo. A half liter of beer at a pub can range between 40 and 70 NOK. And I didn't yet mention anything with more than 10% alcohol in it!
Congratulations, I thought Carnot had proven that the machine of perpetual motion was impossible...
Seriously, there's a limit on breeding (there has to be if physics has sense). You get waste anyway. Making fuel out of waste is not necessarily economically or energetically sound, and the efficiencies... well, there's no 100% efficiency in this world, right?
I don't understand why people continue backing nuclear fission. It's economically and energetically insane, not to mention the most shortsighted power generation system from an environmental point of view, which is not the point of view of weeny hippies, it's the point of view of responsible people.
Please read this couple of publications (got from ScienceDirect, if you don't have clearance check your university library):
Proops, J., "The (non-)economics of the nuclear fuel cycle: an
historical discourse and analysis", Ecological Economics, 39 (2001) 13-19.
Paine, J. R., "Will nuclear power pay for itself?", The social science
journal, Vol 33 N 4 (1996) 459-473
the first one describes why people believed in nuclear power for so long, diseconomics notwithstanding; the second puts a lot of numbers into place to demonstrate how nuclear has still a long way to go before it pays for itself. It is calculated that even in the most optimistic scenario (lowered capital costs, increased lifetime, increased electricity prices and increased fleet capacity), nuclear will have a increased return of max 1 or 2 %, over about 70 years. There is NO business in this world that invests for so long time scales (70 years ago Hitler had just become Fuehrer), and especially for so puny returns.
After this, you still have the waste and security issues.
And oh, many in the scientific community assert that you don't get energy in a nuclear cycle at all, since extraction, chemical and isotope purification, maintenance and everything else are so energy-expensive that they eat up everything that is being produced. A nuclear plant buying fuel also "buys" the energy used to produce it, which is less than the energy it will generate in the reactor (it depends of course on reactor type and fuel producer).
Another detail: have you ever seen an insurance company offering to insure your nuclear power plant? Right, NO company would ever dare take such an insane risk, since the damages are of gigantic size and would cripple the company. Now, if the people who work with risk assesment do not trust nuclear and do not insure such plants, what's the conclusion you get to?
-Federico, who still remembers how he could not eat yoghurt for months after Chernobyl.
Actually the best source is reforming of natural gas. Gasification of coal is not as attractive, but probably is still economically better than solar or wind.
Too bad the article does not sufficiently stress that hydrogen is only a energy carrier and not a source. Hydrogen and fuel cells are a wonderful technology, but this hype will prove damaging when some pundit will come and say that hydrogen is a scam (false) because it cannot supply energy (true).
While the Bush administration is indeed investing on hydrogen, they are investing the wrong way. I saw a presentation from DoE this september at the European Hydrogen Energy Conference in Grenoble, and they are pushing for "energy independence" (while they managed not to utter the word CO2 once in their presentation... reminds me of Stalin that bent science in accord to politics): one of the most insane things was the Freedom Car (formerly French car I think;-), which is the most useless buck sink one can find. If their goal is reduced energy dependence, the US have to:
Impose a decent tax on gas, the price should quadruplicate at least. It will look the same if they decide to introduce metric at the same time (a gallon is about 4 liters);-). Notice this is not only cost-free, the State actually gets money - and it works perfect to discourage excessive car usage!
Impose Punishing and Painful(R) taxes on low-efficiency cars, like those SUV gas-guzzlers, especially Humvee-like trucks; if you want the freedom to fart CO2 like a power plant, then pay for it!
Invest a lot on mass transport (how many public buses and subway lines are there in LA?)
Then, the guys at DoE can start doing something with hydrogen. It's useless to look for so expensive and long-term solutions when one has not even the courage to undertake the most simple and basic steps toward energy rationality.
Please note that I am not against hydrogen - dammit, I work as a PhD student on hydrogen and fuel cells! -, but trying to solve the energy supply problem with hydrogen is like trying to put shoes on a snake.
Hydrogen cannot explode in a "mushroom cloud", since that is typical of H-bombs, that require an A-bomb as a detonator. Now, if the other car had an A-bomb onboard, this might have a far-fetched possibility to happen.
However H2 is pretty safe. It is ultralight, which means that, if it has a clean path to the sky, it will not accumulate as gasoline fumes; that's why nobody on the Hindenburg died because of hydrogen (Yeah, nobody). Some were killed by the explosion in the diesel engines, others were so scared by the flames above them that they jumped out of the gondola - crashing in the ground 100 meters below, but all those who remained in the gondola survived the crash landing. That's because the hydrogen flames went straight upwards, while in a gasoline fire you have liquid gasoline running all over the place.
The real safety issue with H2 is that it fires very easily. You need a spark to ignite a mixture of air and methane, while static electricity is enough for hydrogen and air. Normal atmosphere in a windy day is normally enough. That's sometimes actually a Good Thing, because hydrogen is lit way before it can accumulate in large quantities.
Are you sure that AOthedeacon in Slashdot is actually the same person that plays thedeacon in AO? It looks to me more like a troll that wants some attention. The writing style is way different from the post on nanoclan.com, and the fact that you post as an AC does not come to your avail. I never played AO, don't really liked games I could get too much involved in (except Civilization maybe...). But I have no difficulty believing that some journalists just do as they please, knowing they can lie with impunity. As a definition I like goes, A journalist is a person who knows nothing and writes about everything. Well, at least many journalists are like that.
I don't think pollution is a problem for hydrogen engines -- they don't burn hydrocarbons.
Actually it is. Hydrogen combustion does not generate CO2, but it has inherent problems with high-temperature combustion. This means, there is going to be high air excess to lower the actual temperature in order to avoid needing a tungsten engine which would be a bit expensive.
This high air excess will in turn cause a massive production of NOx, a highly pollutant compound (actually they are two, NO and NO2) that is caused by the high-temperature combustion. It is quite reactive and is one of the most toxic stuffs a petrol car spits out.
This is a known problem with H2 combustion engines. If you want a zero-emission engine, you have to use H2 with fuel cells, not in piston engines.
What about the queues one will get at a toilet? People are supposed to use toilets to shit, piss and leave, not check/write emails, surf the net for what we can imagine given the place, and so on.
About the guy who suggested voice recognition to solve hygienic problems: how do you cope with the alterations of voice occurrinnnggg innn a majjjorrrr exxxcccrretttiooohhhhhn! Whew!
And how do you filter out the background noise? Think people writing an urgent mail to their boss... I wonder what's the ASCIIfication of a fart!
You are bloody right. Mods, the post above is 5 Insightful. Hydrogen is an energy CARRIER, NOT A SOURCE. It is not found freely in nature, and it is generated by steam reforming of naphtha or natural gas.
Wired's article is of a stunning ignorance! Not only they ignore that hydrogen is a carrier and NOT a source, which won't move the energy dependance of the US by a millimeter, they write:
Hydrogen stores energy more effectively than current batteries[...]
...which happens to be the most stupid thing I have heard about hydrogen yet. The main problem of hydrogen is exactly storage, as it has an incredibly low volumetric energy density (J/m).
These guys at Wired are simply LAMERS!!!
The main fields of research in fuel cells are now:
Get hydrogen to fit in a car, in metal hydrides or in another form;
Implement PEM fuel cells on cars (See Mercedes' Necar 4)
Use SO fuel cells to burn natural gas more efficiently and reduce emissions while managing to actually make money, see Siemens.
First mobile implementations will likely be buses, as they have a reduced chicken-and-egg problem (they all refuel at the same place and regularly), see Ballard.
-Federico,
who happens to be a PhD student in Hydrogen technology at NTNU Trondheim
(I actually haven't read the 2nd page. Too much crap makes me sick.)
I think you should think as a dishonest coder would. Why risking your butt on an app with a back door that can be found anytime? They are taking a chance as well.
Unless s/he would need to use the back door shortly, sort of right after compiling, this would be pointless: were the back door to be found, s/he would face at least to get an extremely bad reputation (no job anymore), would almost surely be fired "so fast his/her ass would leave skidmarks on the parking lot", and would get no benefit from his/her treachery.
So, I think back-door coders are most likely to sell their products closed source, as many enterprises do not really know that open source is out there at all. If someone actually finds the back door, they can even sue them for reverse engineering (which of course will be forbidden in the EULA)!
...and thanks to all the geeks... er, committed users out there that check source code once in a while.
From Loreto, where they hung the ol'pig, to Piola, where the Politecnico is.
Was pretty cool, it showed a old guy in a jogging suit running as fast as the train, staring at the people inside it, and then running past with an expressionless face.
It was there when I got back from Norway, July 2001.
Dunno whether it is still there, as I moved to the other side of Italy.
Slashdot Mirror
Whoops, sorry. It's just that over here "Oekokrim" sounds like "IRS" in the US, in the rush I forgot that somebody does not live in Norway.
AFAIK Oekokrim had decided to drop the case, letting him win... There's no way of starting an appeal trial at the supreme court without an accuser.
No coincidence it is the only NATO country that had a land border with Soviet Russia.
150,000 NOK in Norway have definitely less purchasing power than their countervalue in dollars in the US or any EU country; AFAIK the only country more expensive than Norway is Iceland, and maybe (some areas of) Japan.
I think this is mostly about principles than money, 150000 is not really a bunch. My 54-sq. meters flat (here in Norway) is worth 840,000 NOK, and I got quite a deal at buying that. Iceberg salad is 20-30 NOK for about half a kilo. A half liter of beer at a pub can range between 40 and 70 NOK. And I didn't yet mention anything with more than 10% alcohol in it!
Methinks Freenet has no search algorithm, you must know the name of the file before downloading.
(I think)
Congratulations, I thought Carnot had proven that the machine of perpetual motion was impossible...
Seriously, there's a limit on breeding (there has to be if physics has sense). You get waste anyway. Making fuel out of waste is not necessarily economically or energetically sound, and the efficiencies... well, there's no 100% efficiency in this world, right?
Please read this couple of publications (got from ScienceDirect, if you don't have clearance check your university library):
- Proops, J., "The (non-)economics of the nuclear fuel cycle: an
historical discourse and analysis", Ecological Economics, 39 (2001) 13-19.
- Paine, J. R., "Will nuclear power pay for itself?", The social science
journal, Vol 33 N 4 (1996) 459-473
the first one describes why people believed in nuclear power for so long, diseconomics notwithstanding; the second puts a lot of numbers into place to demonstrate how nuclear has still a long way to go before it pays for itself. It is calculated that even in the most optimistic scenario (lowered capital costs, increased lifetime, increased electricity prices and increased fleet capacity), nuclear will have a increased return of max 1 or 2 %, over about 70 years. There is NO business in this world that invests for so long time scales (70 years ago Hitler had just become Fuehrer), and especially for so puny returns.After this, you still have the waste and security issues.
And oh, many in the scientific community assert that you don't get energy in a nuclear cycle at all, since extraction, chemical and isotope purification, maintenance and everything else are so energy-expensive that they eat up everything that is being produced. A nuclear plant buying fuel also "buys" the energy used to produce it, which is less than the energy it will generate in the reactor (it depends of course on reactor type and fuel producer).
Another detail: have you ever seen an insurance company offering to insure your nuclear power plant? Right, NO company would ever dare take such an insane risk, since the damages are of gigantic size and would cripple the company. Now, if the people who work with risk assesment do not trust nuclear and do not insure such plants, what's the conclusion you get to?
-Federico,
who still remembers how he could not eat yoghurt for months after Chernobyl.
Too bad the article does not sufficiently stress that hydrogen is only a energy carrier and not a source. Hydrogen and fuel cells are a wonderful technology, but this hype will prove damaging when some pundit will come and say that hydrogen is a scam (false) because it cannot supply energy (true).
While the Bush administration is indeed investing on hydrogen, they are investing the wrong way. I saw a presentation from DoE this september at the European Hydrogen Energy Conference in Grenoble, and they are pushing for "energy independence" (while they managed not to utter the word CO2 once in their presentation... reminds me of Stalin that bent science in accord to politics): one of the most insane things was the Freedom Car (formerly French car I think
- Impose a decent tax on gas, the price should quadruplicate at least. It will look the same if they decide to introduce metric at the same time (a gallon is about 4 liters)
;-). Notice this is not only cost-free, the State actually gets money - and it works perfect to discourage excessive car usage!
- Impose Punishing and Painful(R) taxes on low-efficiency cars, like those SUV gas-guzzlers, especially Humvee-like trucks; if you want the freedom to fart CO2 like a power plant, then pay for it!
- Invest a lot on mass transport (how many public buses and subway lines are there in LA?)
Then, the guys at DoE can start doing something with hydrogen. It's useless to look for so expensive and long-term solutions when one has not even the courage to undertake the most simple and basic steps toward energy rationality.Please note that I am not against hydrogen - dammit, I work as a PhD student on hydrogen and fuel cells! -, but trying to solve the energy supply problem with hydrogen is like trying to put shoes on a snake.
Hydrogen cannot explode in a "mushroom cloud", since that is typical of H-bombs, that require an A-bomb as a detonator. Now, if the other car had an A-bomb onboard, this might have a far-fetched possibility to happen.
However H2 is pretty safe. It is ultralight, which means that, if it has a clean path to the sky, it will not accumulate as gasoline fumes; that's why nobody on the Hindenburg died because of hydrogen (Yeah, nobody). Some were killed by the explosion in the diesel engines, others were so scared by the flames above them that they jumped out of the gondola - crashing in the ground 100 meters below, but all those who remained in the gondola survived the crash landing. That's because the hydrogen flames went straight upwards, while in a gasoline fire you have liquid gasoline running all over the place.
The real safety issue with H2 is that it fires very easily. You need a spark to ignite a mixture of air and methane, while static electricity is enough for hydrogen and air. Normal atmosphere in a windy day is normally enough. That's sometimes actually a Good Thing, because hydrogen is lit way before it can accumulate in large quantities.
Well...
"Try communism - use Linux"
That's the way it was in Soviet Russia, you insensitive clod!
orzetto,
who's been called a communist by his PM a few thousand times, along with more than half the Italian people.
(And I am one, in my way)
Are you sure that AOthedeacon in Slashdot is actually the same person that plays thedeacon in AO?
It looks to me more like a troll that wants some attention. The writing style is way different from the post on nanoclan.com, and the fact that you post as an AC does not come to your avail.
I never played AO, don't really liked games I could get too much involved in (except Civilization maybe...). But I have no difficulty believing that some journalists just do as they please, knowing they can lie with impunity.
As a definition I like goes, A journalist is a person who knows nothing and writes about everything. Well, at least many journalists are like that.
Cheers
Actually it is. Hydrogen combustion does not generate CO2, but it has inherent problems with high-temperature combustion. This means, there is going to be high air excess to lower the actual temperature in order to avoid needing a tungsten engine which would be a bit expensive.
This high air excess will in turn cause a massive production of NOx, a highly pollutant compound (actually they are two, NO and NO2) that is caused by the high-temperature combustion. It is quite reactive and is one of the most toxic stuffs a petrol car spits out.
This is a known problem with H2 combustion engines. If you want a zero-emission engine, you have to use H2 with fuel cells, not in piston engines.
What about the queues one will get at a toilet? People are supposed to use toilets to shit, piss and leave, not check/write emails, surf the net for what we can imagine given the place, and so on.
About the guy who suggested voice recognition to solve hygienic problems: how do you cope with the alterations of voice occurrinnnggg innn a majjjorrrr exxxcccrretttiooohhhhhn! Whew!
And how do you filter out the background noise? Think people writing an urgent mail to their boss... I wonder what's the ASCIIfication of a fart!
Wired's article is of a stunning ignorance! Not only they ignore that hydrogen is a carrier and NOT a source, which won't move the energy dependance of the US by a millimeter, they write:
These guys at Wired are simply LAMERS!!!
The main fields of research in fuel cells are now:
- Get hydrogen to fit in a car, in metal hydrides or in another form;
- Implement PEM fuel cells on cars (See Mercedes' Necar 4)
- Use SO fuel cells to burn natural gas more efficiently and reduce emissions while managing to actually make money, see Siemens.
- First mobile implementations will likely be buses, as they have a reduced chicken-and-egg problem (they all refuel at the same place and regularly), see Ballard.
-Federico,who happens to be a PhD student in Hydrogen technology at NTNU Trondheim
(I actually haven't read the 2nd page. Too much crap makes me sick.)
I think you should think as a dishonest coder would. Why risking your butt on an app with a back door that can be found anytime? They are taking a chance as well.
...and thanks to all the geeks... er, committed users out there that check source code once in a while.
Unless s/he would need to use the back door shortly, sort of right after compiling, this would be pointless: were the back door to be found, s/he would face at least to get an extremely bad reputation (no job anymore), would almost surely be fired "so fast his/her ass would leave skidmarks on the parking lot", and would get no benefit from his/her treachery.
So, I think back-door coders are most likely to sell their products closed source, as many enterprises do not really know that open source is out there at all. If someone actually finds the back door, they can even sue them for reverse engineering (which of course will be forbidden in the EULA)!
-Orzetto
From Loreto, where they hung the ol'pig, to Piola, where the Politecnico is.
Was pretty cool, it showed a old guy in a jogging suit running as fast as the train, staring at the people inside it, and then running past with an expressionless face.
It was there when I got back from Norway, July 2001.
Dunno whether it is still there, as I moved to the other side of Italy.
...Kompreneble kaj bedauxrinde ne.
:-)
Hey you webmasters!!! What about supporting Unicode here in Slashdot postings? BTW one could even post in Chinese then...
Ghuu???
?uu estas pli bela.
?u Slashdot ne subtenas unikodajn ?apeletojn?
(for non-Esperanto speakers - just a joke about when to start using Unicode...)