Seeing as we are speaking about wind it's the most costly energy you can get with the possible exception of diesel. So you are shipping expensive energy over distance and large distance which requires expensive infrastructure
IA typical new 69 kV overhead single-circuit transmission line costs approximately $285,000 per mile as opposed to $1.5 million per mile for a new 69 kV underground line (without the terminals). A new 138 kV overhead line costs approximately $390,000 per mile as opposed to $2 million per mile for underground (without the terminals)."
You know I have never bothered to calculate the transmission loss and cost to maintain interconnects for transmitting large amounts of electricity thousands of KM
Why don't you do the physical and economic analysis and actually make your point.
Unless you have rewritten the laws of physics mine still stands.
You do realize that concept cars are so infrequently put into production that never is a valid adjective ?
So back to the original premise.
1. There is nothing to indicate the production of cultured meat will follow the price curve of semiconductors. 2. Cows are remarkable machines for producing cows. There is little indication that we can make a better machine for turning grass into cow.
I doubt I could buy any car made today that had the crashworthyness of the Lincoln
Which is just as well - run it into anything solid and YOU are the crumple zone.
You aren't very on this whole car thing are you ? Last time you were pontificating on varieties of Model A and you couldn't identify which was which.
Also a bit of a bad example since that was just before Detroit found it out could not keep on selling 1940s technology without the Japanese, Germans - even Italians and British eating their lunch. When Leyland and Fiat are making more advanced stuff than is made locally that's a bit of a slap in the face with a rotting fish.
Detroit was selling to demand that was just fine, their lack of good quality control was their big killer.
Please The tech that killed detroit was quality control
The biggest difference with modern cars is their ability to keep you the passenger alive through crashes, which older vehicles would save the car (mostly) but more likely kill you the passenger.
There is a kernel of truth to that but it's offset by the fact that recent cars are lighter to meet fuel efficiency standards. I've crashed more cars than I care to talk about (Did you think I picked my username at random ?) Most of the benefit from the current vintage comes from airbags. That's offset by the interiors being less spacios and the frames being flimsier. I had a crash in my prior vehicle where the airbag saved me but only because the dash was close enough for me to pound into it. On an older car that simply wouldn't have been a problem.
Slashdot Mirror
What the hell are you talking about? What spies? What computer hacking?
Been taking a vacation under a rock ?
::: Pinches K. S. Kyosuke's cheeks ::::
What a cute child how unfortunate it was dropped on its head too many times.
Feel free to protest how you are being misinterpreted.
You're likely right about the theft. Sooner or later Mainland China will gobble up Taiwan so they will have the contract as well.
Yes it does have military implications. If anyone doubts that they just need to look at the X37b
https://upload.wikimedia.org/w...
Must military products be made in the U.S. ? Sure doesn't seem that way
Just ask Magnaquench
http://www.counterpunch.org/20...
Should this be illegal, Yeah.
Save China the trouble of planting spies and hacking computers just give it to them directly.
You have to wonder if this was a parting deal for Obama or ongoing relations with the Clinton Crime Family(TM)(C)
The new independence is bad and unengaging because it is bad and unengaging and a sequel to a movie that wasn't that great.
It has nothing to do with CGI vs Practical effects.
Shifting goalposts I see.
Don't understand the concept I see.
Seeing as we are speaking about wind it's the most costly energy you can get with the possible exception of diesel. So you are shipping expensive energy over distance and large distance which requires expensive infrastructure
http://www.elp.com/articles/po...
Yes it is a loss.
IA typical new 69 kV overhead single-circuit transmission line costs approximately $285,000 per mile as opposed to $1.5 million per mile for a new 69 kV underground line (without the terminals). A new 138 kV overhead line costs approximately $390,000 per mile as opposed to $2 million per mile for underground (without the terminals)."
http://www.elp.com/articles/po...
You really should try and look. You might learn something.
But obviously it's better to shout things down while admitting never even trying to find the facts...
You still haven't tried to find the facts.
The UK is a bit smaller than Australia, and it isn't shipping power from the Orkneys to London.
Norway is exporting Hydroelectric power. Aka the cheapest power in the world.
I'll guess you were unaware of this and not just trying to create an obvious strawman.
You know I have never bothered to calculate the transmission loss and cost to maintain interconnects for transmitting large amounts of electricity thousands of KM
Why don't you do the physical and economic analysis and actually make your point.
Unless you have rewritten the laws of physics mine still stands.
Ask any child of five. And they could have told you this was going to be a problem.
That was a rhetorical comparison meant to show the simplicity of reaching the conclusion. Most people understand this.
we can get by without them but only if we replace them with something else.
A reasonable person would spell out what the something else was and what the benefits and drawbacks to doing so are.
Geographic distribution = Transmission losses = higher prices
E=IR : not just a good idea, it's the law.
http://dailycaller.com/2016/04...
And even in the less than sane Deutsch Republik they are waking up that fact.
I Still have that vette well maintained.
If you want to put money where your mouth is, I'll be glad to race
Does it raise the price of corn that would otherwise be used for feed ?
If yes, argument stands
if no, you are validated.
You do realize that concept cars are so infrequently put into production that never is a valid adjective ?
So back to the original premise.
1. There is nothing to indicate the production of cultured meat will follow the price curve of semiconductors.
2. Cows are remarkable machines for producing cows. There is little indication that we can make a better machine for turning grass into cow.
I knew someone that made a game of seeing how many mods they could load on Dragon Age before the game died.
I suppose that's why we are all navigating the world on our Segways
So instead having cheap animal feed, you had expensive gasoline that had less energy content than before and your food prices went up.
Other than opportunistic benefits, the point behind gasohol was to reduce dependence on sketchy oil-producing countries.
So what you are saying is a process that consumed more energy than it produced was going to reduce our energy needs ?
Would have been far better to just promote coal liquification to reduce our imports.
From what to what, and relative to what ?
Yeah larger car stronger materials more room to deform around the passenger
Completely irrelevant.
Which is just as well - run it into anything solid and YOU are the crumple zone.
You aren't very on this whole car thing are you ? Last time you were pontificating on varieties of Model A and you couldn't identify which was which.
Also a bit of a bad example since that was just before Detroit found it out could not keep on selling 1940s technology without the Japanese, Germans - even Italians and British eating their lunch. When Leyland and Fiat are making more advanced stuff than is made locally that's a bit of a slap in the face with a rotting fish.
Detroit was selling to demand that was just fine, their lack of good quality control was their big killer.
Please The tech that killed detroit was quality control
The biggest difference with modern cars is their ability to keep you the passenger alive through crashes, which older vehicles would save the car (mostly) but more likely kill you the passenger.
There is a kernel of truth to that but it's offset by the fact that recent cars are lighter to meet fuel efficiency standards. I've crashed more cars than I care to talk about (Did you think I picked my username at random ?) Most of the benefit from the current vintage comes from airbags. That's offset by the interiors being less spacios and the frames being flimsier. I had a crash in my prior vehicle where the airbag saved me but only because the dash was close enough for me to pound into it. On an older car that simply wouldn't have been a problem.
What there wasn't a credible source like Gawker or the Weekly World News ?