I just googled a random factlet: It says, refining a gallon of gasoline uses between 4 and 7.5kWh.
So a Model S can go 500 km on 85kWh which means it can go 23.5 km per kWh (assuming refining used 'only' 4kWh) and thus per gallon.
As a comparison, a 2 litre Audi A6 gets 28 MPG. that's about 48 km per gallon.
So you might say, hey, the gas engines are actually better! You'd be wrong.
This means that half the electricity a Model S uses, is used anyway by a gas engine! This means, if we switched over to all electric cars, only 50% of the needed electricity would have to be produced on top of what we're doing today, because the other 50% already go into gas production, right now.
Also, if you take the 7.5kWh number, you get a number of 44 km to the gallon for a Model S and that is RIGHT THERE with what an Audi uses. Only without burning even a cup of fossil fuels.
Sure, a Model S is not magically environmentally friendly. These batteries aren't all fairy dust and laughter to recycle, but heck, I thought CO2 was our major problem. Let's solve it.
Instead of stepping up the hydrogen/fuel cell business (which needs two additional conversions of energy), why not just put more effort into better batteries and do away with all that expensive and probably large equipment and put the electricity to work directly?
I really don't get hydrogen proponents...
We need three things from batteries: - Longer life - Faster recharge - More storage
And in a lot of situations, a bit of organizational talent helps to work around some, if not most, of an all electric car's limitations. A Tesla Model S can go almost 500km. How many people do you think will have to go more than 500km in one day on a regular basis?
Sure, we can't replace ALL other vehicles with all electric cars right now, but if we could replace 60%, imagine what that would do to our CO2 budgets. Unless, of course, we've been burning fossil fuels to make electricity.
If I could afford a Model S, I'd by it. But then again, I go to work mostly by bike or motorbike, so my gasoline abuse is rather limited as it is.
Well, then don't go bragging how your bear can do everything. It obviously can't. That doesn't reflect negatively on your bear as long as you don't give people false expectations.
Unless the wind decides to take a nap right about the moment when the sun tries to burn people to a crisp. You know, the reason you have to turn on air conditioning in the first place, because there's no wind to cool shit down.
Wind power is a nice bonus but I wouldn't rely on it powering anything of importance.
That's why we are talking about LFTR and not the reactor type you are refering to.
The german reactor was more or less a Uranium reactor that ran on Thorium as well. A LFTR runs almost purely on Thorium, needing Urianium only as a starter.
Do NOT mix the two up.
Please make yourself familiar with that concept. Thorium is a fuel. The reactor design is somewhat independent of it.
Uhh, why would you need more than one diaper? If you're going to take the time to change it after its first use, you might just as well have used the toilet.
I agree wholeheartedly... it's even worse than that: Take Swisscom as an example. They make about a billion in profit per year. Last year, IIRC, they made about 1.1 billion. This was, again IIRC, more than they made the year previous.
Since analysts had expected them to make 1.2 billion, their stock fell. They made more than the year before and still they get the finger just because they made less progress than some other random schmuck expected.
In a corporate environment? HELLO?! If your shop is so small, that you actually can look at the desktop environment without your networking, then it's not really a corporate environment.
Yeah, your point may be factual and correct but in the real world, it's mighty useless...
Cow manure. It is very understandable that they want their trademark to stand out. Sure, they could have allowed him to use it, just this once.... and the dude selling candy would have been okay as well. Oh, sure, the granny selling her knitting with a similar logo... who cares...
And then the kiddie-porn company that kills baby seals and dumps radioactive shit into the world's water supply comes along and claims that the trademark is free game because Jack Daniels, obviously, hasn't felt the need to protect it thus far.
No, THIS is exactly how this should have happened. Anyone not doing it like this needs to get kicked in the balls either by society or by stock holders.
I was with you until the last sentence... What kind of logic is this?
We already have many examples of shooters not surviving their killing spree and you think the death penalty will deter any of them?
Fact is, neither giving everyone guns nor taking them all away from citizens, neither capital punishment nor lax and liberal handling of such things will stop all of the occurrences of these shootings. Period.
What we must decide is how much freedom we are willing to give up and what gain we can expect from that. Basically this means how many lives is our freedom worth. And that is a damn hard question to answer. I for one am of the belief, that since you cannot realistically save them all, some lost lives must be accepted as collateral damage. If you really aim for perfection in the security game, you're halfway down the road towards madness.
Shit, I hate coding and my present job is really good but I think I'd fit right in with you bastards. Heck, my wife would fit in quite well, too;). Kudos from Switzerland *brofist*
That is a nice saying but in the real world, when it comes to rotten situations it might just as well be that it's either stupidity or malice, neither or even both.
Never discount any possibility without ample reason.
"2) Social engineer the car to be a part of this "rental agreement"."
Uh-huh, because if you want to strip a car, you're not just going to smash the window and hotwire the car with the little box you bought off of e-bay in under 5 minutes. Riiiight.
"And can it benefit from an attitude of "fuck the farmers who make the lettuce, we're going to spit on them and kick them to the ground because we 'only care about our customers!'" ?"
Erm, I don't know how it is where you live, but around here, that's pretty much how it works.
Nintendo was quite well-known in Switzerland, as were Commodore and Amiga (I believe they're different things, yes? I was a NES kid...).
Yet, I just know of two people who owned Sega. One had the color handheld (which, frankly, blew the Gameboy out of all waters) and the other had... well, everything, it seemed.
I concur. I think it was at the beginning of the last century that people in Switzerland were protesting against the government. This is a direct democracy, please remember this when I tell you that the MILITIA was ordered to open fire... and they did.
So a government directly appointed by the people used a militia formed of the people to kill the people. Never underestimate how much of a mindless weapon a soldier can be become, even with relatively little training.
Only if you're male and deemed fit to serve in the militia. And they're trying to change that now. Of course there's a lot of opposition. People pro army rifle often state that Switzerland enjoys the liberties it has exactly because the population is armed to the teeth.
The people for taking the rifles away say that every misuse or accident is one too many. Personally, I think both sides have it wrong, as usual;).
The interesting thing to see: People wanting to vote ANYTHING but actually voting for someone that is not the opposing party's candidate.
Anything but Obama seems to mean Whatshisname (yes, I ain't American) the Republicans have running this year. I'd love to see what happens if enough people realised there are other choices beyond the obvious.
So the problem is operating old tech for too long? Well, not using that tech at all is one thing they could do... or they could upgrade in security conscious intervals. They could try other products. I mean, the iPhone isn't the only smartphone out there and neither are reactors like Daiichi the only types available.
The only problem with this discussion is that a viable alternative is not considered due to fear and bad publicity.
What do you mean expendable? You do realise that those are adult people, yes?
In case of Katz, alcoholism is a self-inflicted thing that needs the participation and motivation of the afflicted to be cured. Only they can, in fact, cure themselves. How do you even expect us to help them if they do not want to be helped?
We are not their baby-sitters. It's their lives to do with as they please. And who knows, perhaps Katz liked it that way. Drunk driving aside, who are we to tell him he can't do it that way? I wasn't there and I didn't know the guy so I will certainly not act as if I had the right to judge.
Slashdot Mirror
I just googled a random factlet: It says, refining a gallon of gasoline uses between 4 and 7.5kWh.
So a Model S can go 500 km on 85kWh which means it can go 23.5 km per kWh (assuming refining used 'only' 4kWh) and thus per gallon.
As a comparison, a 2 litre Audi A6 gets 28 MPG. that's about 48 km per gallon.
So you might say, hey, the gas engines are actually better! You'd be wrong.
This means that half the electricity a Model S uses, is used anyway by a gas engine! This means, if we switched over to all electric cars, only 50% of the needed electricity would have to be produced on top of what we're doing today, because the other 50% already go into gas production, right now.
Also, if you take the 7.5kWh number, you get a number of 44 km to the gallon for a Model S and that is RIGHT THERE with what an Audi uses. Only without burning even a cup of fossil fuels.
Sure, a Model S is not magically environmentally friendly. These batteries aren't all fairy dust and laughter to recycle, but heck, I thought CO2 was our major problem. Let's solve it.
Instead of stepping up the hydrogen/fuel cell business (which needs two additional conversions of energy), why not just put more effort into better batteries and do away with all that expensive and probably large equipment and put the electricity to work directly?
I really don't get hydrogen proponents...
We need three things from batteries:
- Longer life
- Faster recharge
- More storage
And in a lot of situations, a bit of organizational talent helps to work around some, if not most, of an all electric car's limitations. A Tesla Model S can go almost 500km. How many people do you think will have to go more than 500km in one day on a regular basis?
Sure, we can't replace ALL other vehicles with all electric cars right now, but if we could replace 60%, imagine what that would do to our CO2 budgets. Unless, of course, we've been burning fossil fuels to make electricity.
If I could afford a Model S, I'd by it. But then again, I go to work mostly by bike or motorbike, so my gasoline abuse is rather limited as it is.
You still watch that crap? My condolences. I'd offer you a hug, because you could really use one, I think.
Well, then don't go bragging how your bear can do everything. It obviously can't. That doesn't reflect negatively on your bear as long as you don't give people false expectations.
Oak Ridge ran a thorium reactor for several years.
Also I'd like to point out that you don't make your worldview look any more credible by being rude to those who don't share it.
Unless the wind decides to take a nap right about the moment when the sun tries to burn people to a crisp. You know, the reason you have to turn on air conditioning in the first place, because there's no wind to cool shit down.
Wind power is a nice bonus but I wouldn't rely on it powering anything of importance.
Localized LFTR reactors, on the other hand...
That's why we are talking about LFTR and not the reactor type you are refering to.
The german reactor was more or less a Uranium reactor that ran on Thorium as well. A LFTR runs almost purely on Thorium, needing Urianium only as a starter.
Do NOT mix the two up.
Please make yourself familiar with that concept. Thorium is a fuel. The reactor design is somewhat independent of it.
Uhh, why would you need more than one diaper? If you're going to take the time to change it after its first use, you might just as well have used the toilet.
I agree wholeheartedly... it's even worse than that: Take Swisscom as an example. They make about a billion in profit per year. Last year, IIRC, they made about 1.1 billion. This was, again IIRC, more than they made the year previous.
Since analysts had expected them to make 1.2 billion, their stock fell. They made more than the year before and still they get the finger just because they made less progress than some other random schmuck expected.
How's that even sane?
In a corporate environment? HELLO?! If your shop is so small, that you actually can look at the desktop environment without your networking, then it's not really a corporate environment.
Yeah, your point may be factual and correct but in the real world, it's mighty useless...
Cow manure. It is very understandable that they want their trademark to stand out. Sure, they could have allowed him to use it, just this once.... and the dude selling candy would have been okay as well. Oh, sure, the granny selling her knitting with a similar logo... who cares...
And then the kiddie-porn company that kills baby seals and dumps radioactive shit into the world's water supply comes along and claims that the trademark is free game because Jack Daniels, obviously, hasn't felt the need to protect it thus far.
No, THIS is exactly how this should have happened. Anyone not doing it like this needs to get kicked in the balls either by society or by stock holders.
I was with you until the last sentence... What kind of logic is this?
We already have many examples of shooters not surviving their killing spree and you think the death penalty will deter any of them?
Fact is, neither giving everyone guns nor taking them all away from citizens, neither capital punishment nor lax and liberal handling of such things will stop all of the occurrences of these shootings. Period.
What we must decide is how much freedom we are willing to give up and what gain we can expect from that. Basically this means how many lives is our freedom worth. And that is a damn hard question to answer. I for one am of the belief, that since you cannot realistically save them all, some lost lives must be accepted as collateral damage. If you really aim for perfection in the security game, you're halfway down the road towards madness.
Shit, I hate coding and my present job is really good but I think I'd fit right in with you bastards. Heck, my wife would fit in quite well, too ;). Kudos from Switzerland *brofist*
That is a nice saying but in the real world, when it comes to rotten situations it might just as well be that it's either stupidity or malice, neither or even both.
Never discount any possibility without ample reason.
"2) Social engineer the car to be a part of this "rental agreement"."
Uh-huh, because if you want to strip a car, you're not just going to smash the window and hotwire the car with the little box you bought off of e-bay in under 5 minutes. Riiiight.
If you want to have anything resembling a democracy, you know what you've got to do.
"And can it benefit from an attitude of "fuck the farmers who make the lettuce, we're going to spit on them and kick them to the ground because we 'only care about our customers!'" ?"
Erm, I don't know how it is where you live, but around here, that's pretty much how it works.
Nintendo was quite well-known in Switzerland, as were Commodore and Amiga (I believe they're different things, yes? I was a NES kid...).
Yet, I just know of two people who owned Sega. One had the color handheld (which, frankly, blew the Gameboy out of all waters) and the other had... well, everything, it seemed.
I concur. I think it was at the beginning of the last century that people in Switzerland were protesting against the government. This is a direct democracy, please remember this when I tell you that the MILITIA was ordered to open fire... and they did.
So a government directly appointed by the people used a militia formed of the people to kill the people. Never underestimate how much of a mindless weapon a soldier can be become, even with relatively little training.
Only if you're male and deemed fit to serve in the militia. And they're trying to change that now. Of course there's a lot of opposition. People pro army rifle often state that Switzerland enjoys the liberties it has exactly because the population is armed to the teeth.
The people for taking the rifles away say that every misuse or accident is one too many. Personally, I think both sides have it wrong, as usual ;).
The interesting thing to see: People wanting to vote ANYTHING but actually voting for someone that is not the opposing party's candidate.
Anything but Obama seems to mean Whatshisname (yes, I ain't American) the Republicans have running this year. I'd love to see what happens if enough people realised there are other choices beyond the obvious.
So the problem is operating old tech for too long? Well, not using that tech at all is one thing they could do... or they could upgrade in security conscious intervals. They could try other products. I mean, the iPhone isn't the only smartphone out there and neither are reactors like Daiichi the only types available.
The only problem with this discussion is that a viable alternative is not considered due to fear and bad publicity.
What happens if they don't send out wrong packets... but fake blacklistings about normal BT users?
Could you translate this from Gobbledygook to English, please?
What do you mean expendable? You do realise that those are adult people, yes?
In case of Katz, alcoholism is a self-inflicted thing that needs the participation and motivation of the afflicted to be cured. Only they can, in fact, cure themselves. How do you even expect us to help them if they do not want to be helped?
We are not their baby-sitters. It's their lives to do with as they please. And who knows, perhaps Katz liked it that way. Drunk driving aside, who are we to tell him he can't do it that way? I wasn't there and I didn't know the guy so I will certainly not act as if I had the right to judge.