That's all fine and good, but that does nothing to address the poor efficiency of these devices while they're actually in use.
But even so, the allowances for unused supplies is pretty generous and easily achievable with a few cents worth of components. It's just that now the market has an incentive (avoiding regulatory fines) to actually give a shit about not burning the candle from both ends, and consumers will see a benefit regardless if they knew about what they were missing or not. =Smidge=
And that's why nearly everything you said is wrong.
You said power generation at point of use frees us from infrastructure needs.
No, I didn't. This is where adult-level reading comprehension really comes into play. What I said was: "you eliminate the cost of building and maintaining the vast majority of infrastructure that would be required for a central plant."
That does not mean you would not need infrastructure. If you build a central power plant you will need to connect it to the grid, and possibly augment the grid to deliver that power.
On the other hand, solar PV installed at the point of use piggybacks on existing infrastructure, and actually reduces the peak loads which reduces maintenance costs.
I hope you can appreciate the distinction. =Smidge=
Okay, you seem to have a few problems going on here.
For one, I'm talking about Photovoltaics and you seem to be alternating between PV and solar-thermal. This should have been evident because the very first thing I typed was "Solar PV..."
I don't think I'm the one with a reading comprehension problem here. I suppose it's also possible that you simply don't know anything and can't tell the difference. =Smidge=
Solar PV has essentially zero maintenance cost once installed.
Plus, with the benefit of the power being produced where it is actually used, you eliminate the cost of building and maintaining the vast majority of infrastructure that would be required for a central plant.
On top of that, the people who install the systems reap direct financial benefits through lower utility bills.
Up-front costs are higher in total, due to the need to shuffle electricians around
I get the impression that you have no idea what you're talking about...
The problems with deploying in wide area are large. Land use is inefficient
Wrong. The land in question is already being used for something else: housing. In essence there is zero additional land use. It doesn't get more efficient than that.
Transmission to point-of-use incurs more loss
You're producing *at* the point of use. There is essentially no transmission required.
That's another way of saying, "You close your eyes and pretend it's not there."
No, that's explaining the difference between pissing in your cornflakes and pissing in the ocean.
Do you want to cut down 5 million acres of forest or 5 million acres of forest?
No, and I just explained why we wouldn't have to. I get the impression that you're either have no actual experience with solar power or you're being deliberately obtuse. =Smidge=
You could handily generate all of the electricity we in the US need just by putting solar panels on roofs of private residences, and not even ALL of them.
When people like you do these kinds of calculations, they seem to get stuck on the idea that it needs to be homogenous. Saying "5.3 times the land area of Rhode Island" might be technically correct, but it's meaningless: That's *0.2%* of the entire area of the contiguous United States. When you spread it out - as is the optimal arrangement for solar power anyway - it virtually vanishes. =Smidge=
This was my firth thought as well; Problem is, how do you guarantee it doesn't devolve into partisan hackery/propaganda?
Even if you do manage to keep it as objective as humanly possible, of course you'll still get people complaining that it has some sort of nefarious agenda... =Smidge=
Sanders running as an independant would only result in President Trump.
Unless the GOP nominates someone else, by means fair or foul.
Worst case if that happens, Trump drops out and we get GOP candidate X vs a split democratic party.
Best case if that happens, Trump runs as an Independent and we end up with BOTH parties split and a four-way election with two major parties and two independents with strong followings. That would be quiet exciting, to be honest.
That's assuming Bernie runs as an Independent if he doesn't get the DNC nomination, which I hope he does if only to send a message. =Smidge=
Alice wants something done and pays Bob to do it. Bob subcontract to Carol, who subcontracts to David. David doesn't do it or botches it. Alice is upset and sues Bob. Bob says "It isn't my fault, sue Carol instead". What happens?
Alice still takes Bob to court. Bob may or may not sue Carol, too (and Carol suing David), but Alice's contract was with Bob and it was Bob's responsibility to fulfill that contract.
That's exactly how it works in the construction industry, which has this kind of scenario fairly often (layers of subcontractors). The prime contractor is on the hook with the client, and it's not the client's problem if one of the prime's subcontractors fucks up. =Smidge=
Maybe not suddenly, but if it tastes good enough, there are nutritional reasons (lower fats, for example) and most importantly the price is right, then I could easily see artificial meat sitting in the grocery store and being offered on menus.
There will always be a huge market for real meat, of course, but if alternatives are available then alternatives will always be taken by somebody. =Smidge=
Air conditioning. You have a heat pump that removes heat from the occupied space and that removed heat is taken away by the water. The cooling tower then cool that water.
The alternative is to remove the rejected heat directly using air. That's what "in-window" air conditioners use, as well as many smaller AC units. In large buildings, however, it's often very difficult to cool the machines directly with air. =Smidge=
Except that a smartphone is not significantly removed from any other computing device. Apple had been in the electronic engineering business - including portable devices - for decades before the iPhone. All they had to do was take a PDA and a cell phone and stuff them into the same case.
A car is something entirely different. They have no prior experience with the engineering non understanding of the regulatory frameworks. They have no established supply chains to provide the materials and parts. They will have to throw money at the problem to get the required talent and climb that learning curve.
And it will probably end up an overpriced but pretty-looking lump of shit just like everything else Apple makes. =Smidge=
Race car engines are designed to run they way they do all the time, but they also suffer so much wear and tear in doing so that they are rebuilt or replaced for every event.
The most reliable and long-lasting engines run slow and steady; That's merely a fact that no amount of additional engineering can really change. Someone, somewhere, determined that a few hundred or thousand hours of service life lost out of tens of thousands was worth the trade. All engineering is compromise, after all. =Smidge=
Well how do you know what regulations to repeal if you don't know which ones are affecting the situation? Do you trust the politicians to repeal the correct regulations?
I mean, SURELY nobody would rally to repeal regulations without understanding at least that much about the situation, right? Right?! =Smidge=
You can likely fit over a hundred beers in there if you take it out of the containers first, though that may require judicial use of caulking first. =Smidge=
"The fact that we have brains hasn't made the world any safer"
Now, I understand that life isn't a zero-sum game, and I don't want to belittle any of the truly horrible things that are happening in the world right now... but on the whole, the world is a safer place than it's been in probably any point in humanity's history.
If you want to determine if a medicine is really the cause of the effect on patient's health - positive or negative - then you use a placebo to rule out the possibility that swallowing a huge pill or getting an injection itself is causing some psychological effect. You have the real medicine (lights+signal), fake medicine (lights + no signal), control group (no lights + no signal), and sometimes an alternative treatment (no lights + signal).
There is a known (or at least claimed) correlation between WiFi signals and reported illness. The test is designed to isolate the effects of perceivable stimulus (lights on the device) with the supposed cause of the illness (the invisible WiFi signals). Intuitively we all "know" that WiFi signals do not cause any physiological effects. But something is apparently effecting these people, and the test is aimed at figuring out what that something is. =Smidge=
Slashdot Mirror
There are a LOT of words, and some punctuation, between the clauses "$300 million a year in electricity costs" and "6.5 million homes."
Those words probably mean something...
=Smidge=
That's all fine and good, but that does nothing to address the poor efficiency of these devices while they're actually in use.
But even so, the allowances for unused supplies is pretty generous and easily achievable with a few cents worth of components. It's just that now the market has an incentive (avoiding regulatory fines) to actually give a shit about not burning the candle from both ends, and consumers will see a benefit regardless if they knew about what they were missing or not.
=Smidge=
Most of what I said is platform-agnostic.
And that's why nearly everything you said is wrong.
You said power generation at point of use frees us from infrastructure needs.
No, I didn't. This is where adult-level reading comprehension really comes into play. What I said was: "you eliminate the cost of building and maintaining the vast majority of infrastructure that would be required for a central plant."
That does not mean you would not need infrastructure. If you build a central power plant you will need to connect it to the grid, and possibly augment the grid to deliver that power.
On the other hand, solar PV installed at the point of use piggybacks on existing infrastructure, and actually reduces the peak loads which reduces maintenance costs.
I hope you can appreciate the distinction.
=Smidge=
Okay, you seem to have a few problems going on here.
For one, I'm talking about Photovoltaics and you seem to be alternating between PV and solar-thermal. This should have been evident because the very first thing I typed was "Solar PV..."
I don't think I'm the one with a reading comprehension problem here. I suppose it's also possible that you simply don't know anything and can't tell the difference.
=Smidge=
Wide-spread management incurs higher total cost.
Solar PV has essentially zero maintenance cost once installed.
Plus, with the benefit of the power being produced where it is actually used, you eliminate the cost of building and maintaining the vast majority of infrastructure that would be required for a central plant.
On top of that, the people who install the systems reap direct financial benefits through lower utility bills.
Up-front costs are higher in total, due to the need to shuffle electricians around
I get the impression that you have no idea what you're talking about...
The problems with deploying in wide area are large. Land use is inefficient
Wrong. The land in question is already being used for something else: housing. In essence there is zero additional land use. It doesn't get more efficient than that.
Transmission to point-of-use incurs more loss
You're producing *at* the point of use. There is essentially no transmission required.
That's another way of saying, "You close your eyes and pretend it's not there."
No, that's explaining the difference between pissing in your cornflakes and pissing in the ocean.
Do you want to cut down 5 million acres of forest or 5 million acres of forest?
No, and I just explained why we wouldn't have to. I get the impression that you're either have no actual experience with solar power or you're being deliberately obtuse.
=Smidge=
You could handily generate all of the electricity we in the US need just by putting solar panels on roofs of private residences, and not even ALL of them.
When people like you do these kinds of calculations, they seem to get stuck on the idea that it needs to be homogenous. Saying "5.3 times the land area of Rhode Island" might be technically correct, but it's meaningless: That's *0.2%* of the entire area of the contiguous United States. When you spread it out - as is the optimal arrangement for solar power anyway - it virtually vanishes.
=Smidge=
So...if this starts becoming predominant in the US, I wonder how many Mexican workers will return home after being displaced by the robots?
None, because if it was viable to remain in Mexico they would not have risked so much coming here in the first place.
=Smidge=
This was my firth thought as well; Problem is, how do you guarantee it doesn't devolve into partisan hackery/propaganda?
Even if you do manage to keep it as objective as humanly possible, of course you'll still get people complaining that it has some sort of nefarious agenda...
=Smidge=
Sanders running as an independant would only result in President Trump.
Unless the GOP nominates someone else, by means fair or foul.
Worst case if that happens, Trump drops out and we get GOP candidate X vs a split democratic party.
Best case if that happens, Trump runs as an Independent and we end up with BOTH parties split and a four-way election with two major parties and two independents with strong followings. That would be quiet exciting, to be honest.
That's assuming Bernie runs as an Independent if he doesn't get the DNC nomination, which I hope he does if only to send a message.
=Smidge=
Alice wants something done and pays Bob to do it. Bob subcontract to Carol, who subcontracts to David. David doesn't do it or botches it. Alice is upset and sues Bob. Bob says "It isn't my fault, sue Carol instead". What happens?
Alice still takes Bob to court. Bob may or may not sue Carol, too (and Carol suing David), but Alice's contract was with Bob and it was Bob's responsibility to fulfill that contract.
That's exactly how it works in the construction industry, which has this kind of scenario fairly often (layers of subcontractors). The prime contractor is on the hook with the client, and it's not the client's problem if one of the prime's subcontractors fucks up.
=Smidge=
No, ABS does not outgas HCN.
There is a report out there about a flame test of nylon carpeting, which was found to off gas HCN while burning.
3D printing does not burn the filament, nylon filaments do not off gas HCN, and ABS filament certainly doesn't either.
=Smidge=
I'm old enough to remember the entire premise of "Cable TV" was that you paid a monthly subscription to get ad-free television.
=Smidge=
Maybe not suddenly, but if it tastes good enough, there are nutritional reasons (lower fats, for example) and most importantly the price is right, then I could easily see artificial meat sitting in the grocery store and being offered on menus.
There will always be a huge market for real meat, of course, but if alternatives are available then alternatives will always be taken by somebody.
=Smidge=
Air conditioning. You have a heat pump that removes heat from the occupied space and that removed heat is taken away by the water. The cooling tower then cool that water.
The alternative is to remove the rejected heat directly using air. That's what "in-window" air conditioners use, as well as many smaller AC units. In large buildings, however, it's often very difficult to cool the machines directly with air.
=Smidge=
Except that a smartphone is not significantly removed from any other computing device. Apple had been in the electronic engineering business - including portable devices - for decades before the iPhone. All they had to do was take a PDA and a cell phone and stuff them into the same case.
A car is something entirely different. They have no prior experience with the engineering non understanding of the regulatory frameworks. They have no established supply chains to provide the materials and parts. They will have to throw money at the problem to get the required talent and climb that learning curve.
And it will probably end up an overpriced but pretty-looking lump of shit just like everything else Apple makes.
=Smidge=
Race car engines are designed to run they way they do all the time, but they also suffer so much wear and tear in doing so that they are rebuilt or replaced for every event.
The most reliable and long-lasting engines run slow and steady; That's merely a fact that no amount of additional engineering can really change. Someone, somewhere, determined that a few hundred or thousand hours of service life lost out of tens of thousands was worth the trade. All engineering is compromise, after all.
=Smidge=
According to this article, it's the relaxation of regulations that is permitting media conglomerates.
That's the exact opposite of the claim being made, and OP's proposal to remove existing regulations will only make it worse.
=Smidge=
Well how do you know what regulations to repeal if you don't know which ones are affecting the situation? Do you trust the politicians to repeal the correct regulations?
I mean, SURELY nobody would rally to repeal regulations without understanding at least that much about the situation, right? Right?!
=Smidge=
How else would they be able to remember it?
Their wives' names, I mean...
=Smidge=
So what regulations are causing the consolidation of media brands, exactly?
=Smidge=
I just hope that they make sure the contractors install all of the self-destruct deactivation substations properly.
=Smidge=
One, maybe two, if you leave it in the container.
You can likely fit over a hundred beers in there if you take it out of the containers first, though that may require judicial use of caulking first.
=Smidge=
Actually it was a lyrical reference to RHCP not RATM, but I like the way you think.
=Smidge=
"The fact that we have brains hasn't made the world any safer"
Now, I understand that life isn't a zero-sum game, and I don't want to belittle any of the truly horrible things that are happening in the world right now... but on the whole, the world is a safer place than it's been in probably any point in humanity's history.
Violence is down.
People are, on average, living longer, healthier lives.
Poverty is declining, if only slightly.
And so on... never been a better time than right now.
=Smidge=
I disagree. There is no reason at all to show lights if what you are really testing is sensitivity to radio signals.
There's no parlor tricks here. The lights are the placebo in a placebo-controlled study.
If you want to determine if a medicine is really the cause of the effect on patient's health - positive or negative - then you use a placebo to rule out the possibility that swallowing a huge pill or getting an injection itself is causing some psychological effect. You have the real medicine (lights+signal), fake medicine (lights + no signal), control group (no lights + no signal), and sometimes an alternative treatment (no lights + signal).
There is a known (or at least claimed) correlation between WiFi signals and reported illness. The test is designed to isolate the effects of perceivable stimulus (lights on the device) with the supposed cause of the illness (the invisible WiFi signals). Intuitively we all "know" that WiFi signals do not cause any physiological effects. But something is apparently effecting these people, and the test is aimed at figuring out what that something is.
=Smidge=