Gasoline isn't one or two or even three chemicals, it is a blend of chemicals, distilled and reformed from the components found in the feedstock. They're only trying to control the carbon chain length and vapor pressure. You'll get different quality depending on the feedstock source and where the refining was done. Over the years, I've seen gasoline that was dark amber in color and looked like it had heavy oils in it; and, I've seen gasoline so clear that the distinctive odor and slight yellow tinting were the only indication what was in the container. This is a case, literally, of YMMV.
This has always been true with plain gasoline. It does get exacerbated in some older equipment which pre-dates the use of ethanol in fuels. In some cases the plastics and seals can be damaged by the ethanol, with components of the plastic ending up in solution. Obviously these can precipitate out as the fuel evaporates.
ethanol contains fewer BTU per gallon (Joules per liter) than the mix of chemicals known as gasoline. (114k BTU/gal vs 76 kBTU/gal) You will end up with lower MPG using ethanol through pure physics. An engine can be designed to run specifically on ethanol with higher compression and different timing curves, which will result in increased efficiency and will partially offset the energy loss.
Cox is pretty good at meeting the end user's expectations where I am (Hampton Roads). I'm paying for 25 down and 5 up. I just ran a speed test twice using two different services and got 34 down and 3.5 up the first time and 33 down and 4.2 up the second time. I have no complaints about that.
is waiting.... Unfortunately, even though they compete with Verizon FIOS in Hampton Roads, when they add gigabit to their existing tiered plans it will probably be too expensive.
I use Cox and subscribe to the "preferred plan", 25 Mbit down / 5 Mbit up. Monthly limit for that plan is 250GB. They currently offer two plans with higher bandwidth and monthly limits to homeowners in my region.
In many cases, if you overlap the "official" support too much, the origination company will come after you. They may not have ground to stand on, ultimately; but, the cost of defending yourself will kill your fledgling business unless you have wealthy backers who believe in your ability to succeed.
I say the 50,000 employees all team up and create a company named Homeward Bound (HB). Seems appropriate since HP sent them all home. They can sell software as a service, cheap servers, re-badge some cheap laptops and tablets, and maybe sell a few printers. Then they should do something different and maybe provide support from regional offices -- you call and you get someone within driving distance of your site, who can show up and actually help you solve your problem.
Those calculations are all accounted for in the position estimate. The star database contains the true position of all the stars in the Galaxy (as of the last census) and their motion relative to the pair of black holes in the galaxy core and the standard Quasar reference points. (It's actually quite a complex calculation, given that the motion of the Quasars and galactic core have to also be taken into account).
We have better propulsion. Most of it requires a nuclear reactor being launched into orbit so it can be attached to the ship to power said engines. Good luck with that.
Looking at other planetary systems teaches us something about our own. If we find "earth-like" planets, that helps us understand what is required to create an Earth, how stable an Earth is, where we should look for them, and what an Earth (besides our sample of 1) looks like. It's invaluable information even if we can't get there.
There's a whole other potential issue that's being reviewed: Our heavy use of antibiotics. We've changed our gut flora through antibiotic use. It's not entirely clear how that's affecting humans. The studies are showing a similar effect on animals -- you feed one group of animals antibiotics and another group gets the same feed but no antibiotics and guess which group ends up weighing more.
There's another point to be made as well: There are no absolutes. It's not food only, or processed sugar, or antibiotics, or genetics or exercise. It's combinations and interactions of all of the above. That's why some people, such as yourself, stay trim, while others, like myself, tend to put on weight if I look at carbohydrates from across the room.
It's not limited to that. I'm 6'0" and my best sustainable weight was 220 lbs. And I cycle. At the time I was that weight I was cycling daily -- using my bike to commute to work and going for longer rides on the weekend. I reached 195 lbs once, for a short period, but that was by adding jogging to the cycling. There are numerous other factors involved here.
This project, a bridge tunnel between Alaska and either Russia or China, has been discussed for decades. It would be an awesome idea and a massive undertaking. To date, no one has actually done it because of the easy access to air travel, cheap ocean freight, and the expense of building a 100+ mile bridge in some of the harshest environment known to man.
Carbon Fiber is a poor choice if you're looking at sustainability. It's energy intensive to make it. The primary components are made from petrochemicals. It's not recyclable. You would be better off using cast aluminum for the supports and arches -- while it takes a lot of energy to extract initially, it's fairly robust and can be readily recycled 20 or 30 years in the future when the carport gets replaced.
There is one more part missing, the avionics and flight controls necessary to dock Dragon without assistance from personnel inside the station. With the supply missions, there is no need to have Dragon dock itself. With a manned mission, it's vital that Dragon be able to do so. They may have this done already; but, it needs to be tested.
Ok, I read the journal article and a couple of the referenced papers. Thank-you, I found it interesting. Here's my take, as an engineer... And please, read through to the end because my conclusion is slightly different, partially supports your premise, and is relevant to the discussion at large.
The authors of the study do show that it is theoretically possible to meet capacity 99.9% of the time using only renewables. They make certain assumptions about improvements in technology driving down costs through 2030, which are all reasonable. Unfortunately, in order to make the argument that costs are comparable to today's electricity expenses, they include externalized costs (more on this later). Since nationwide medical expenses and environmental expenses incurred due to energy production are not born by the utilities, the concept becomes non-viable economically. It then becomes a policy question at the national level (since the study area covers multiple states, making policy at the state level would not be effective)
In addition, the system requirements to meet the author's proposal require keeping 28 GW of fossil fuel generating capacity for the 0.1% of the time that renewables with storage cannot be expected to supply demand. Even if one assumes that existing plants are used for this purpose, so no new plants are required, the maintenance costs keeping a plant operational for use.1% of the time are too high to be economically feasible. For a good fraction of the year, these plants would remain cold. However, most fossil fuel plants take time to bring online and heat up; so, for several months of the year the plants would have to remain running in a hot idle state, burning fuel, so they could come online when demand peaks and wind power is at a minimum. This does not appear to be included in the author's calculations.
The article avoids nuclear entirely, which is not surprising. It does appear in one table where the authors add the externalized costs to PJM's current production matrix. In this table, the authors show that both the operating costs and the externalized costs for nuclear, as of 2010, are similar to those of hydro and wind. These resources (nuclear, hydro, and wind) are shown to be substantially below current costs for fossil fuels with or without externalized costs. The methodology of the article, where wind supplies the bulk of power generation, does not work with nuclear in the mix as nuclear plants are only cost effective if they are making base load power continuously. The high costs for renewable generation found in the article were reached by including substantial energy storage and by the need to have in excess of 230% peak demand in total nameplate capacity for the renewable generators. By restructuring the mix with a smaller percentage of renewables, the author's findings do suggest that we could economically meet our energy demands using a mix of nuclear power and renewables.
I totally agree that there is an advantage to re-using the site, and perhaps the electrical supply infrastructure, if it's new enough and has enough capacity (recall that most old plants are 600-800MWe and most new designs are aiming for 1000-1200MWe). Cooling infrastructure would be inadequate and probably at least a decade old by the time they decide to shut down a plant
Engineering in the U.S.? no I'm not cheap labor. I'm aiming for a daily driver, a 20 footer. Not building a show quality vehicle. To build the museum quality or show quality vehicle, sure, you could easily spend 3 times what a new vehicle costs. I've seen (worked on) show quality vehicles where most of the parts, including the frame, every nut and bolt, and the engine block, were powder coated. Paint job alone on that car costs more than I intend to spend, in total, on my truck AND my new subcompact commuter car, combined. I could upgrade the truck to modern systems; but, I'm going to leave it at 1970 for mostly nostalgic reasons.
I was searching for a quick analogy that anyone could understand. Actually, a 40 or 50 year old concrete containment building might have structural issues, depending on how well the rebar and concrete aged. In addition, for many older designs (especially the BWR designs) the containment building is part of the reactor system. As you may already know, it is not as simple as just sticking a new reactor core and heat exchanger into the building. I suppose you could gut it and re-use building and vessel. You might be better off building a new modern containment building and reactor on the site next to the old one. Get the new one working then bring the old one offline and start the decommissioning process.
Well, sodium has issues; but, outside of the sodium + air = bad issues, S-PRISM and IFR that PRISM was based on are inherently safe designs that meet your requirement of using >10% of the fuel. Molten salt reactors require on-site reprocessing as part of the fuel cycle. IFR also did this. I don't see this happening any time soon just because of the politics of it. Getting a reactor approved is one thing. Getting a reactor with on-site fuel reprocessing is, even if it's safe(r), more difficult.
Slashdot Mirror
Gasoline isn't one or two or even three chemicals, it is a blend of chemicals, distilled and reformed from the components found in the feedstock. They're only trying to control the carbon chain length and vapor pressure. You'll get different quality depending on the feedstock source and where the refining was done. Over the years, I've seen gasoline that was dark amber in color and looked like it had heavy oils in it; and, I've seen gasoline so clear that the distinctive odor and slight yellow tinting were the only indication what was in the container. This is a case, literally, of YMMV.
This has always been true with plain gasoline. It does get exacerbated in some older equipment which pre-dates the use of ethanol in fuels. In some cases the plastics and seals can be damaged by the ethanol, with components of the plastic ending up in solution. Obviously these can precipitate out as the fuel evaporates.
ethanol contains fewer BTU per gallon (Joules per liter) than the mix of chemicals known as gasoline. (114k BTU/gal vs 76 kBTU/gal) You will end up with lower MPG using ethanol through pure physics. An engine can be designed to run specifically on ethanol with higher compression and different timing curves, which will result in increased efficiency and will partially offset the energy loss.
Cox is pretty good at meeting the end user's expectations where I am (Hampton Roads). I'm paying for 25 down and 5 up. I just ran a speed test twice using two different services and got 34 down and 3.5 up the first time and 33 down and 4.2 up the second time. I have no complaints about that.
is waiting.... Unfortunately, even though they compete with Verizon FIOS in Hampton Roads, when they add gigabit to their existing tiered plans it will probably be too expensive.
You do realize a lot of customer endpoint equipment, like the Motorola Surfboard and Linksys WRT54GL I use, do not support IPV6.
I use Cox and subscribe to the "preferred plan", 25 Mbit down / 5 Mbit up. Monthly limit for that plan is 250GB. They currently offer two plans with higher bandwidth and monthly limits to homeowners in my region.
In many cases, if you overlap the "official" support too much, the origination company will come after you. They may not have ground to stand on, ultimately; but, the cost of defending yourself will kill your fledgling business unless you have wealthy backers who believe in your ability to succeed.
And... we've slashdotted the Gigabyte site in less than 20 comments
I say the 50,000 employees all team up and create a company named Homeward Bound (HB). Seems appropriate since HP sent them all home. They can sell software as a service, cheap servers, re-badge some cheap laptops and tablets, and maybe sell a few printers. Then they should do something different and maybe provide support from regional offices -- you call and you get someone within driving distance of your site, who can show up and actually help you solve your problem.
Those calculations are all accounted for in the position estimate. The star database contains the true position of all the stars in the Galaxy (as of the last census) and their motion relative to the pair of black holes in the galaxy core and the standard Quasar reference points. (It's actually quite a complex calculation, given that the motion of the Quasars and galactic core have to also be taken into account).
We have better propulsion. Most of it requires a nuclear reactor being launched into orbit so it can be attached to the ship to power said engines. Good luck with that.
Looking at other planetary systems teaches us something about our own. If we find "earth-like" planets, that helps us understand what is required to create an Earth, how stable an Earth is, where we should look for them, and what an Earth (besides our sample of 1) looks like. It's invaluable information even if we can't get there.
"40 Hz of current"? current is not measured in Hz.
There's a whole other potential issue that's being reviewed: Our heavy use of antibiotics. We've changed our gut flora through antibiotic use. It's not entirely clear how that's affecting humans. The studies are showing a similar effect on animals -- you feed one group of animals antibiotics and another group gets the same feed but no antibiotics and guess which group ends up weighing more.
There's another point to be made as well: There are no absolutes. It's not food only, or processed sugar, or antibiotics, or genetics or exercise. It's combinations and interactions of all of the above. That's why some people, such as yourself, stay trim, while others, like myself, tend to put on weight if I look at carbohydrates from across the room.
It's not limited to that. I'm 6'0" and my best sustainable weight was 220 lbs. And I cycle. At the time I was that weight I was cycling daily -- using my bike to commute to work and going for longer rides on the weekend. I reached 195 lbs once, for a short period, but that was by adding jogging to the cycling. There are numerous other factors involved here.
This project, a bridge tunnel between Alaska and either Russia or China, has been discussed for decades. It would be an awesome idea and a massive undertaking. To date, no one has actually done it because of the easy access to air travel, cheap ocean freight, and the expense of building a 100+ mile bridge in some of the harshest environment known to man.
Carbon Fiber is a poor choice if you're looking at sustainability. It's energy intensive to make it. The primary components are made from petrochemicals. It's not recyclable. You would be better off using cast aluminum for the supports and arches -- while it takes a lot of energy to extract initially, it's fairly robust and can be readily recycled 20 or 30 years in the future when the carport gets replaced.
Unfortunately, it's not. Deputy Prime Minister in Russia actually said that. So, the rhetoric heats up...
There is one more part missing, the avionics and flight controls necessary to dock Dragon without assistance from personnel inside the station. With the supply missions, there is no need to have Dragon dock itself. With a manned mission, it's vital that Dragon be able to do so. They may have this done already; but, it needs to be tested.
Ok, I read the journal article and a couple of the referenced papers. Thank-you, I found it interesting. Here's my take, as an engineer... And please, read through to the end because my conclusion is slightly different, partially supports your premise, and is relevant to the discussion at large.
The authors of the study do show that it is theoretically possible to meet capacity 99.9% of the time using only renewables. They make certain assumptions about improvements in technology driving down costs through 2030, which are all reasonable. Unfortunately, in order to make the argument that costs are comparable to today's electricity expenses, they include externalized costs (more on this later). Since nationwide medical expenses and environmental expenses incurred due to energy production are not born by the utilities, the concept becomes non-viable economically. It then becomes a policy question at the national level (since the study area covers multiple states, making policy at the state level would not be effective)
In addition, the system requirements to meet the author's proposal require keeping 28 GW of fossil fuel generating capacity for the 0.1% of the time that renewables with storage cannot be expected to supply demand. Even if one assumes that existing plants are used for this purpose, so no new plants are required, the maintenance costs keeping a plant operational for use .1% of the time are too high to be economically feasible. For a good fraction of the year, these plants would remain cold. However, most fossil fuel plants take time to bring online and heat up; so, for several months of the year the plants would have to remain running in a hot idle state, burning fuel, so they could come online when demand peaks and wind power is at a minimum. This does not appear to be included in the author's calculations.
The article avoids nuclear entirely, which is not surprising. It does appear in one table where the authors add the externalized costs to PJM's current production matrix. In this table, the authors show that both the operating costs and the externalized costs for nuclear, as of 2010, are similar to those of hydro and wind. These resources (nuclear, hydro, and wind) are shown to be substantially below current costs for fossil fuels with or without externalized costs. The methodology of the article, where wind supplies the bulk of power generation, does not work with nuclear in the mix as nuclear plants are only cost effective if they are making base load power continuously. The high costs for renewable generation found in the article were reached by including substantial energy storage and by the need to have in excess of 230% peak demand in total nameplate capacity for the renewable generators. By restructuring the mix with a smaller percentage of renewables, the author's findings do suggest that we could economically meet our energy demands using a mix of nuclear power and renewables.
I totally agree that there is an advantage to re-using the site, and perhaps the electrical supply infrastructure, if it's new enough and has enough capacity (recall that most old plants are 600-800MWe and most new designs are aiming for 1000-1200MWe). Cooling infrastructure would be inadequate and probably at least a decade old by the time they decide to shut down a plant
Engineering in the U.S.? no I'm not cheap labor. I'm aiming for a daily driver, a 20 footer. Not building a show quality vehicle. To build the museum quality or show quality vehicle, sure, you could easily spend 3 times what a new vehicle costs. I've seen (worked on) show quality vehicles where most of the parts, including the frame, every nut and bolt, and the engine block, were powder coated. Paint job alone on that car costs more than I intend to spend, in total, on my truck AND my new subcompact commuter car, combined. I could upgrade the truck to modern systems; but, I'm going to leave it at 1970 for mostly nostalgic reasons.
I was searching for a quick analogy that anyone could understand. Actually, a 40 or 50 year old concrete containment building might have structural issues, depending on how well the rebar and concrete aged. In addition, for many older designs (especially the BWR designs) the containment building is part of the reactor system. As you may already know, it is not as simple as just sticking a new reactor core and heat exchanger into the building. I suppose you could gut it and re-use building and vessel. You might be better off building a new modern containment building and reactor on the site next to the old one. Get the new one working then bring the old one offline and start the decommissioning process.
Well, sodium has issues; but, outside of the sodium + air = bad issues, S-PRISM and IFR that PRISM was based on are inherently safe designs that meet your requirement of using >10% of the fuel. Molten salt reactors require on-site reprocessing as part of the fuel cycle. IFR also did this. I don't see this happening any time soon just because of the politics of it. Getting a reactor approved is one thing. Getting a reactor with on-site fuel reprocessing is, even if it's safe(r), more difficult.
That's what they thought they were doing with Yucca Mtn. It's on lands within the borders of Nellis AFB and the Nevada nuclear test sites.
They usually try to return these plants back to something close to a greenfield state. As if it were never there... (except for the fuel storage)