Oh well, so by then Motorola outsmarted Apple by bringing new 265 ppi displays out when Apple only had the iPhone 3G! Poor Apple! You don't see them innovate..;D
I like how it's "innovating" when Apple does anything. Touch screen? Clearly Apples innovation. WIFI? Most likely. IPS-panels? Hell yeah, nowhere to be seen before iPad! Video calls? Yes! The tablet PC? I for sure hadn't used one before the iPad came out (and I haven't used that one either..) Higher than average resolution displays? Totally! 64-bit addressing? Most likely!
Not to forget basic things simply better than others for some reason, like how a mac laptop totally got a completely different power consumption PC laptop! (I know, i know, no need to tell me, under ideal circumstances OS X power management may outperform Windows, on the other side surfing the web with OS X flash not so much...)
So, should I post as AC for obvious troll moderating or not? Decisions decisions..
that are breaking new ground with this type of research.
Do you really think Apple is manufacturing the panels? Can it really be called "research" when all you do is increase the resolution of a display? Maybe in the manufacturing chain if there was an issue to be solved, of that I'm not sure.
Meanwhile AmigaOS has been multitasking since 1985(4?)
Oh, the joy to have an Amiga-styled phone running AROS on ARM (more development needed..) or MorphOS on PPC + built-in UAE for ADF-images;)
Genesi? Are you listening? We need PPC-phones, or well, I do, can't speak for everyone else;)
The intention was to post the first sentence as AC, but well, a tinker/hackers phone for fun computing would had been a sweet thing and UNIX-style OSes isn't necessarily my idea of the perfect tinkering/hack-style phone. The nanonote seems like close to the ideal portable computing platform to me, would have needed more ram, wifi, 3g and way more support from it's users though.
My ideal idea of making computing fun again would had been to base the OS of something like Syllable, get the Haiku and AROS developers on-board to do, well, implement whatever was good with BeOS and AmigaOS, like maybe some BeOS compatible APIs or what not, try to convince the developer of SkyOS what a great idea it would be and so on:D. Then finally we could have something like but way better than OS X;). GCC and Posix compatibility would find its way into the OS as it always does and we'd have a nice platform again =P (Though I can't say I know shit about the foundations of either of those OSes, their differences and what parts are better than any other. I just know they are small and hobbyist style and each try to bring a somewhat similar experience but all on their own which makes them less likely to succeed.)
If the UN wasn't as fucked up as it is then that would be much easier.
If it was UN sanctioned safe-keeping then it would probably had been good. If it was a country acting on it's own then maybe not so much.
But all the veto rights make UN toothless plus many countries aren't just willing to waste people and money into business not really affecting them that much. So now the US pick that roll onto themselves, though they do choose their own cases and when it will benefit them.
I appreciate the US for some of its work in keeping the planet safe and people free, but sometimes one could question whatever it was right or showing support for the right party. And sadly in many cases people get stuck in the shit they are in because no-one benefits enough to help them out.
Funny how you're moderated 4 interesting/isnightful thought..
Finland btw: Finland generates about 82 billion kWh per year and has a very high per capita electricity consumption – some 16,000 kWh per head per year. While some of it comes from nuclear (22.6 billion kWh, 27.8% in 2009) and hydro (12.6 TWh, 15.5% in 2009), much of it is either imported (12.4 TWh, 15.3% net in 2009) or generated from imported fuels (mostly coal and some gas). Coal is imported from Russia and Poland, all of its gas comes from Russia, and 14% of 2009 electricity was from Russia.
So 27.8% nuclear power in Finland, way lower than Sweden but still more than the USA. And they may/most likely import MORE electricity than we do and use more fossil fuels. Not nearly as bad as the US though..
"In 2008, Sweden generated almost 146 billion kWh, of which 42% was from nuclear (61.3 billion kWh)."
http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf41.html "The USA has 104 nuclear power reactors in 31 states, operated by 30 different power companies. In 2008, the country generated 4,119 billion kWh net of electricity, 49% of it from coal-fired plant, 22% from gas and 6% from hydro. Nuclear achieved a capacity factor of 91.1%, generating 805 billion kWh and accounting for almost 20% of total electricity generated in 2008. Total capacity is 1,088 GWe, less than one tenth of which is nuclear."
"The country's 104 nuclear reactors produced 799 billion kWh in 2009, over 20% of total electrical output."
So more than twice as much of the energy in Sweden already come from nuclear power than in the US, and have for long since we haven't built anything new but rather closed things down. In the US it seem like they rather want to build more.
More than 70% percent of your (if you're american) energy come from coal and gas, whereas our fossil fuel based energy is less than 10%.
Guess who wins?
the initial construction costs don't say a lot about the overall viability.
Exactly.
it's perfectly possible to use it for further energy generation with the proper reactor design.
True, I've had the impression that using the right type of reactor you could both get way more energy out of your fuel and also got waste which you need to store hundreds of years, not thousands.
So for actual work done by the biogas plant products you have a number hovering around 12GWh.
I have no idea what the efficiency of the buses are. I hate them, the city is rather small, taking the bus takes as long as taking the bike and atleast as long as they where driven on diesel you had the rather nasty hot fumes coming out of them when you ride the bike behind them. Not an issue now but whatever. They should close all roads and make it bikes only, no red lights and shit like that. Don't know how to solve the transport of goods though..
Code is generally code. Lower quality code for a much lower price is many times a decent price to pay.
Unmaintainable code, low performance and shitty product is most likely not worth more or a better investment than good, clean, well-documented code and a product which performs well.
Not that I believe that low-cost / indian /... code would have less quality for some reason.
I think salaries is a bigger factor, but productivity is most likely the biggest one.
We usually have social democratic leadership over here in Sweden and some of the highest income and vat taxes in the world. Now the last time the other side won and have lowered income taxes, but I doubt much more companies came back/stayed because of that (if they still pay the same salaries maybe it doesn't even matter to them.) Some small companies complain and atleast over here bigger companies like Volvo and such got ways / creep holes to not pay any taxes whatsoever anyway.
I assume taxing people higher and companies lower may help.
Anyway, your salaries in the US is tens of times higher than in some other countries and you still got companies around, changing taxation a few percents won't affect that much.
Also speaking for myself the municipal can go in and pay 80% of my salary up to around 16000 SEK or whatever it is if anyone is willing to employ me, that way I will cost a lot less. But unless I perform decent most companies most likely rather employ someone else who actually arrive at time, can be trusted and do what they are supposed to do (not saying I wouldn't, but yeah, they rather pay and get performance than not pay so much and have things fall apart.)
.. and "it's not worth doing it because the impact of this small attempt is so small" is a pretty shitty argument, because if you use that million of times over and over again not much will ever change. But eventually by that scale it would had made a difference, even at a global scale.
His numbers where wrong to since the bio-gas facility produced 60 GWh/year, not 20.
Anyway, I'm sure they wheren't building it because they considered it more powerful than a nuclear plant. They where much more likely rather building it because driving buses on bio-gas seem nicer than driving them on diesel. And this way they could produce enough bio-gas locally.
Btw, the bio-gas plant you get the 10 million euro price from produce 60 GWh/year, not 20. 20 was from the waste/sewage plants depending on which one is right (I assume the sewage since I know they got a gas tank there.)
So your nuclear reactor would still be 3 billion euro.
The bio-gas plant of much smaller scale scaled up to the same volume only by number of plants not assuming any increase in output / spent euro then wouldn't be 5.2 billion but rather a third of that compared to your 20 GWh example, for a total of 1.7 billion euro.
And that's without the money needed to scrap it all and store the waste, I assume.
I don't know what the efficiency of bio-gas in vehicles are, but I assume it's not the same as thermal vs electricity output of a nuclear plant, so that factor won't help much in calculating it. Also as far as transportation goes electrical cars and batteries are probably not something we'd see in the city at this time so they would most likely rather run on hydrogen then so then you have to calculate on the efficiency of converting electricity to hydrogen power + motor efficiency of the hydrogen motor instead.
but do you numbers include the necessary infrastructure costs (plus maintenance) of electrical distribution?
Yeah I assume as far as transportation goes running buses and municipal cars on uranium or electricity isn't something they want or can be doing right now. Converting the energy to hydrogen would lose energy from the nuclear power.
Plus Uranium will become increasingly expensive were it used everywhere
We've got plenty of uranium in Sweden. Though no-one (for good reason..) want anyone to start mining it close to where they live. Nuclear power FACILITIES may be rather clean, the mining is not. As long as it happens "somewhere else" I guess that's just fine, but it's not that nice to the people living there.. People are less worried about farmers growing grains/grass for their bio-gas facilities I assume.
But anyway, as far as radioactive leak of material goes the coal most people rely on instead is worse, plus the global warming factor of course.
It's not, it's enough to keep all the buses in the city + the around 100 cars the municipal have running. Plus selling some to others.
It's not much on a country or global scale but obviously it's something.
In your friendly neighbourhood country of Finland, where nuclear power is not considered the spawn of all evil there is a project to add a third nuclear reactor to the Olkiluoto Nuclear power plant, the reactor when done will have a energy output of 1,720MW, this means that in 12 hours it produces more energy than your wonderful Örebro biogas plants yields in an entire year.
We have 10 or so running nuclear reactors in Sweden, unless any of them is down for maintainance. I know a few (two? three?) in the three plants have been turned off.
That's not enough to provide most of our energy, the majority come from water, but it's still more than lots of other countries. 30 years or so ago they voted to end nuclear power by some year within Sweden but that's not something which will happen and last week the government voted for replacing current nuclear reactors with new ones as long as the total stayed at no more than 10. I assume that open up for more powerful ones.
I hear all sorts of claims that nuclear power cost more during the whole life span vs others which consider it cheap, I don't know what's true. But as long as one can get more energy out from an alternative renewable energy source than it cost to produce the facility, regardless of what it is, I think that may be a good idea. Depending on area use and environment impact and such from those facilities of course.
I don't think Swedes are against nuclear power, I just think everyone is trying to understand their environmental impact and try decide for the better alternative, atleast as long as it won't have an impact on how they can live their lives.
That is, drive less? Consume less electricity? Maybe not. Drive on another fuel source or get different electricity? Yes. Pay more for energy sources more friendly to the environment? Maybe. Want to build wind power "somewhere else"? Yes. At their own backyard? Maybe not.. The same is true for mining uranium. We've got plenty (The water back home at my mom which I've been raised on had 1500 bq/l.)
I think it's good that we are aware, people in general may not have a good idea about the impact of various actions though. For instance AFAIK coal power produce more nuclear waste than actual nuclear energy. And I'm pretty sure that if we need the energy we'll build the plants no matter what.
a cost of approximately 10million € (105M SEK), now this is quite a fair bit lower than the 3 billion € price of the reactor, but then again, the latter produces atleast 527 times more energy so adjusting the price for it we end up at 5,2 billion € for the equivalent biogas plant construction costs
Though building it isn't everything. And it's a first/the biggest one built here. I don't think they where like "omg this would be better than nuclear" but rather, "can we build it and make it work for a reasonable cost?"
Add maintainance, cost of the fuel (in the case of uranium would we mine it here in Sweden? What would that cost compared to a different company?). try to estimate the value of the environmental impact, scrapping the facilities, storage of the waste.
In the case of the bio-gas facility I doubt the environmental cost will be high, the facility is easy to break down and there's no bad waste to take care of, rather fertilizer. Of course growing and harvesting grass don't have an environmental impact of zero either.
which is entirely unreasonable to have in practice and a reason why sweden is still importing coal generated electricty.
As far as my current knowledge goes I would be all for Sweden building more nuclear power plants and exporting the energy. For t
.. or scrap this, since some of the power may come from changes within the potato/electrolyte which will be replaced. Stupid of me to trust someone else reply. Guess it depends on the electrolyte used whatever you can get some energy from that to or just from the electrodes.
The potential is the same, since it comes from the physical properties of the anode and cathodes used, not from the medium which help them transfer their charge.
Sure maybe you improve the functionality of the electrolyte but in the end it doesn't matter does is?
And I'm sure there are better ones than potatoes if speed/power output is what you want.
Oh well, maybe some stupid help organization or lame facebook group or whatever will invest in this revolutionary technology and provide them with free electrodes for their "free" potato power...
I can't suggest batteries either because those to are expensive, suck that poor people rely on them as their energy source.. They really should had got something better. Like free local wind mill + rechargeable batteries so they can somewhat rely on it.
Apples most likely work to, atleast I would assume that from the old silly experiments I saw as a kid where people more or less just connected wires to the potato. Or are potatoes special?
Over here in Örebro all the city busses and all the municipal cars are driven by gas from a plant producing it from mostly grass but also whatever vegetable bi-products.
The municipal web page mention that 1 kg of garbage / sewage (?) waste contain 70% organic material and 30% inorganic material. 1 kg organic material can become around 1 cubic meter biogas with an equivalent energy content of 0.5 liter gas/oil or 5 KWh. They get around 20.000 MWh / year from the local waste dump.
Another web page mention how 60 GWh is produced in the green gras facility and 20 GWh at the sewage treatment plant. Or equivalent to 8 million cubic meter of gas.
They have made a facility of the same size in Linköping but that one run on a more varied diet, don't remember on what though, but probably slaughter waste and such to. Read more about capacities at Swedish bio-gas: http://www.svenskbiogas.se/sb/biogas/anlaggningar/
Örebro also delivers gas to Stockholm.
Reminds me how I saw some TV documentary about how people in poor locations got gas collecting equipment on their own sewage "holes" so they could get some electricity, which I think was used for light or something such. May have been a few years back.
Evolution did what it "should" had done, got rid of the damn 8. p was clearly superior.
But one do have to ask oneself how the fuck could:-P become;] !? That's just to freaky, something else must have interfered, neither of the new characters are even in the first one!
Slashdot Mirror
Oh well, so by then Motorola outsmarted Apple by bringing new 265 ppi displays out when Apple only had the iPhone 3G! Poor Apple! You don't see them innovate .. ;D
I like how it's "innovating" when Apple does anything. Touch screen? Clearly Apples innovation. WIFI? Most likely. IPS-panels? Hell yeah, nowhere to be seen before iPad! Video calls? Yes! The tablet PC? I for sure hadn't used one before the iPad came out (and I haven't used that one either ..) Higher than average resolution displays? Totally! 64-bit addressing? Most likely!
Not to forget basic things simply better than others for some reason, like how a mac laptop totally got a completely different power consumption PC laptop! (I know, i know, no need to tell me, under ideal circumstances OS X power management may outperform Windows, on the other side surfing the web with OS X flash not so much ...)
So, should I post as AC for obvious troll moderating or not? Decisions decisions ..
that are breaking new ground with this type of research.
Do you really think Apple is manufacturing the panels? Can it really be called "research" when all you do is increase the resolution of a display? Maybe in the manufacturing chain if there was an issue to be solved, of that I'm not sure.
Meanwhile AmigaOS has been multitasking since 1985(4?)
Oh, the joy to have an Amiga-styled phone running AROS on ARM (more development needed ..) or MorphOS on PPC + built-in UAE for ADF-images ;)
Genesi? Are you listening? We need PPC-phones, or well, I do, can't speak for everyone else ;)
The intention was to post the first sentence as AC, but well, a tinker/hackers phone for fun computing would had been a sweet thing and UNIX-style OSes isn't necessarily my idea of the perfect tinkering/hack-style phone. The nanonote seems like close to the ideal portable computing platform to me, would have needed more ram, wifi, 3g and way more support from it's users though.
My ideal idea of making computing fun again would had been to base the OS of something like Syllable, get the Haiku and AROS developers on-board to do, well, implement whatever was good with BeOS and AmigaOS, like maybe some BeOS compatible APIs or what not, try to convince the developer of SkyOS what a great idea it would be and so on :D. Then finally we could have something like but way better than OS X ;). GCC and Posix compatibility would find its way into the OS as it always does and we'd have a nice platform again =P
(Though I can't say I know shit about the foundations of either of those OSes, their differences and what parts are better than any other. I just know they are small and hobbyist style and each try to bring a somewhat similar experience but all on their own which makes them less likely to succeed.)
That was an utterly useless car analogy, as they always tend to be, and doesn't make any sense at all.
Truck? Cranes? Small streets? Parking in cities?
We're talking phones, better talk about and compare things they actually do.
If the UN wasn't as fucked up as it is then that would be much easier.
If it was UN sanctioned safe-keeping then it would probably had been good.
If it was a country acting on it's own then maybe not so much.
But all the veto rights make UN toothless plus many countries aren't just willing to waste people and money into business not really affecting them that much. So now the US pick that roll onto themselves, though they do choose their own cases and when it will benefit them.
I appreciate the US for some of its work in keeping the planet safe and people free, but sometimes one could question whatever it was right or showing support for the right party. And sadly in many cases people get stuck in the shit they are in because no-one benefits enough to help them out.
It's also slow as molasses according to videos on Youtube,
Oh what a joy to spend 4 seconds to change Window... Must have!
Funny how you're moderated 4 interesting/isnightful thought ..
Finland btw:
Finland generates about 82 billion kWh per year and has a very high per capita electricity consumption – some 16,000 kWh per head per year. While some of it comes from nuclear (22.6 billion kWh, 27.8% in 2009) and hydro (12.6 TWh, 15.5% in 2009), much of it is either imported (12.4 TWh, 15.3% net in 2009) or generated from imported fuels (mostly coal and some gas). Coal is imported from Russia and Poland, all of its gas comes from Russia, and 14% of 2009 electricity was from Russia.
So 27.8% nuclear power in Finland, way lower than Sweden but still more than the USA. And they may/most likely import MORE electricity than we do and use more fossil fuels. Not nearly as bad as the US though ..
To be honest my post was intended as a cheap shot on sweden and promotion for nuclear energy
http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf42.html
"Sweden has a tax discriminating against nuclear power – now about 0.67 Euro cents/kWh."
2006: 43.6/46.3/9.4/0.7% water/nuclear/fossil/wind
2008: 46.9/42.0/9.7/1.4% water/nuclear/fossil/wind
"In 2008, Sweden generated almost 146 billion kWh, of which 42% was from nuclear (61.3 billion kWh)."
http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf41.html
"The USA has 104 nuclear power reactors in 31 states, operated by 30 different power companies. In 2008, the country generated 4,119 billion kWh net of electricity, 49% of it from coal-fired plant, 22% from gas and 6% from hydro. Nuclear achieved a capacity factor of 91.1%, generating 805 billion kWh and accounting for almost 20% of total electricity generated in 2008. Total capacity is 1,088 GWe, less than one tenth of which is nuclear."
"The country's 104 nuclear reactors produced 799 billion kWh in 2009, over 20% of total electrical output."
So more than twice as much of the energy in Sweden already come from nuclear power than in the US, and have for long since we haven't built anything new but rather closed things down. In the US it seem like they rather want to build more.
More than 70% percent of your (if you're american) energy come from coal and gas, whereas our fossil fuel based energy is less than 10%.
Guess who wins?
the initial construction costs don't say a lot about the overall viability.
Exactly.
it's perfectly possible to use it for further energy generation with the proper reactor design.
True, I've had the impression that using the right type of reactor you could both get way more energy out of your fuel and also got waste which you need to store hundreds of years, not thousands.
So for actual work done by the biogas plant products you have a number hovering around 12GWh.
I have no idea what the efficiency of the buses are. I hate them, the city is rather small, taking the bus takes as long as taking the bike and atleast as long as they where driven on diesel you had the rather nasty hot fumes coming out of them when you ride the bike behind them. Not an issue now but whatever. They should close all roads and make it bikes only, no red lights and shit like that. Don't know how to solve the transport of goods though ..
Code is generally code. Lower quality code for a much lower price is many times a decent price to pay.
Unmaintainable code, low performance and shitty product is most likely not worth more or a better investment than good, clean, well-documented code and a product which performs well.
Not that I believe that low-cost / indian / ... code would have less quality for some reason.
I think salaries is a bigger factor, but productivity is most likely the biggest one.
We usually have social democratic leadership over here in Sweden and some of the highest income and vat taxes in the world. Now the last time the other side won and have lowered income taxes, but I doubt much more companies came back/stayed because of that (if they still pay the same salaries maybe it doesn't even matter to them.) Some small companies complain and atleast over here bigger companies like Volvo and such got ways / creep holes to not pay any taxes whatsoever anyway.
I assume taxing people higher and companies lower may help.
Anyway, your salaries in the US is tens of times higher than in some other countries and you still got companies around, changing taxation a few percents won't affect that much.
Also speaking for myself the municipal can go in and pay 80% of my salary up to around 16000 SEK or whatever it is if anyone is willing to employ me, that way I will cost a lot less. But unless I perform decent most companies most likely rather employ someone else who actually arrive at time, can be trusted and do what they are supposed to do (not saying I wouldn't, but yeah, they rather pay and get performance than not pay so much and have things fall apart.)
Cost isn't everything.
.. and "it's not worth doing it because the impact of this small attempt is so small" is a pretty shitty argument, because if you use that million of times over and over again not much will ever change. But eventually by that scale it would had made a difference, even at a global scale.
His numbers where wrong to since the bio-gas facility produced 60 GWh/year, not 20.
Anyway, I'm sure they wheren't building it because they considered it more powerful than a nuclear plant. They where much more likely rather building it because driving buses on bio-gas seem nicer than driving them on diesel. And this way they could produce enough bio-gas locally.
Btw, the bio-gas plant you get the 10 million euro price from produce 60 GWh/year, not 20. 20 was from the waste/sewage plants depending on which one is right (I assume the sewage since I know they got a gas tank there.)
So your nuclear reactor would still be 3 billion euro.
The bio-gas plant of much smaller scale scaled up to the same volume only by number of plants not assuming any increase in output / spent euro then wouldn't be 5.2 billion but rather a third of that compared to your 20 GWh example, for a total of 1.7 billion euro.
And that's without the money needed to scrap it all and store the waste, I assume.
I don't know what the efficiency of bio-gas in vehicles are, but I assume it's not the same as thermal vs electricity output of a nuclear plant, so that factor won't help much in calculating it. Also as far as transportation goes electrical cars and batteries are probably not something we'd see in the city at this time so they would most likely rather run on hydrogen then so then you have to calculate on the efficiency of converting electricity to hydrogen power + motor efficiency of the hydrogen motor instead.
but do you numbers include the necessary infrastructure costs (plus maintenance) of electrical distribution?
Yeah I assume as far as transportation goes running buses and municipal cars on uranium or electricity isn't something they want or can be doing right now. Converting the energy to hydrogen would lose energy from the nuclear power.
Plus Uranium will become increasingly expensive were it used everywhere
We've got plenty of uranium in Sweden. Though no-one (for good reason ..) want anyone to start mining it close to where they live. Nuclear power FACILITIES may be rather clean, the mining is not. As long as it happens "somewhere else" I guess that's just fine, but it's not that nice to the people living there .. People are less worried about farmers growing grains/grass for their bio-gas facilities I assume.
But anyway, as far as radioactive leak of material goes the coal most people rely on instead is worse, plus the global warming factor of course.
20 GWh/year is pathethic.
It's not, it's enough to keep all the buses in the city + the around 100 cars the municipal have running. Plus selling some to others.
It's not much on a country or global scale but obviously it's something.
In your friendly neighbourhood country of Finland, where nuclear power is not considered the spawn of all evil there is a project to add a third nuclear reactor to the Olkiluoto Nuclear power plant, the reactor when done will have a energy output of 1,720MW, this means that in 12 hours it produces more energy than your wonderful Örebro biogas plants yields in an entire year.
We have 10 or so running nuclear reactors in Sweden, unless any of them is down for maintainance. I know a few (two? three?) in the three plants have been turned off.
That's not enough to provide most of our energy, the majority come from water, but it's still more than lots of other countries. 30 years or so ago they voted to end nuclear power by some year within Sweden but that's not something which will happen and last week the government voted for replacing current nuclear reactors with new ones as long as the total stayed at no more than 10. I assume that open up for more powerful ones.
I hear all sorts of claims that nuclear power cost more during the whole life span vs others which consider it cheap, I don't know what's true. But as long as one can get more energy out from an alternative renewable energy source than it cost to produce the facility, regardless of what it is, I think that may be a good idea. Depending on area use and environment impact and such from those facilities of course.
I don't think Swedes are against nuclear power, I just think everyone is trying to understand their environmental impact and try decide for the better alternative, atleast as long as it won't have an impact on how they can live their lives.
That is, drive less? Consume less electricity? Maybe not. Drive on another fuel source or get different electricity? Yes. Pay more for energy sources more friendly to the environment? Maybe. Want to build wind power "somewhere else"? Yes. At their own backyard? Maybe not .. The same is true for mining uranium. We've got plenty (The water back home at my mom which I've been raised on had 1500 bq/l.)
I think it's good that we are aware, people in general may not have a good idea about the impact of various actions though. For instance AFAIK coal power produce more nuclear waste than actual nuclear energy. And I'm pretty sure that if we need the energy we'll build the plants no matter what.
a cost of approximately 10million € (105M SEK), now this is quite a fair bit lower than the 3 billion € price of the reactor, but then again, the latter produces atleast 527 times more energy so adjusting the price for it we end up at 5,2 billion € for the equivalent biogas plant construction costs
Though building it isn't everything. And it's a first/the biggest one built here. I don't think they where like "omg this would be better than nuclear" but rather, "can we build it and make it work for a reasonable cost?"
Add maintainance, cost of the fuel (in the case of uranium would we mine it here in Sweden? What would that cost compared to a different company?). try to estimate the value of the environmental impact, scrapping the facilities, storage of the waste.
In the case of the bio-gas facility I doubt the environmental cost will be high, the facility is easy to break down and there's no bad waste to take care of, rather fertilizer. Of course growing and harvesting grass don't have an environmental impact of zero either.
which is entirely unreasonable to have in practice and a reason why sweden is still importing coal generated electricty.
As far as my current knowledge goes I would be all for Sweden building more nuclear power plants and exporting the energy. For t
Though obviously I got no clue. And I rather say that myself than let anyone else say it to me ;)
.. or scrap this, since some of the power may come from changes within the potato/electrolyte which will be replaced. Stupid of me to trust someone else reply. Guess it depends on the electrolyte used whatever you can get some energy from that to or just from the electrodes.
The potential is the same, since it comes from the physical properties of the anode and cathodes used, not from the medium which help them transfer their charge.
Sure maybe you improve the functionality of the electrolyte but in the end it doesn't matter does is?
And I'm sure there are better ones than potatoes if speed/power output is what you want.
Not necessarily, you can use it for house-hold use to. Just get a bunch o batteries.
I think methane is a better option.
Oh well, maybe some stupid help organization or lame facebook group or whatever will invest in this revolutionary technology and provide them with free electrodes for their "free" potato power...
I can't suggest batteries either because those to are expensive, suck that poor people rely on them as their energy source .. They really should had got something better. Like free local wind mill + rechargeable batteries so they can somewhat rely on it.
Or as said before a bio gas facility.
Apples most likely work to, atleast I would assume that from the old silly experiments I saw as a kid where people more or less just connected wires to the potato. Or are potatoes special?
Over here in Örebro all the city busses and all the municipal cars are driven by gas from a plant producing it from mostly grass but also whatever vegetable bi-products.
The municipal web page mention that 1 kg of garbage / sewage (?) waste contain 70% organic material and 30% inorganic material. 1 kg organic material can become around 1 cubic meter biogas with an equivalent energy content of 0.5 liter gas/oil or 5 KWh. They get around 20.000 MWh / year from the local waste dump.
Another web page mention how 60 GWh is produced in the green gras facility and 20 GWh at the sewage treatment plant. Or equivalent to 8 million cubic meter of gas.
They have made a facility of the same size in Linköping but that one run on a more varied diet, don't remember on what though, but probably slaughter waste and such to. Read more about capacities at Swedish bio-gas:
http://www.svenskbiogas.se/sb/biogas/anlaggningar/
Örebro also delivers gas to Stockholm.
Reminds me how I saw some TV documentary about how people in poor locations got gas collecting equipment on their own sewage "holes" so they could get some electricity, which I think was used for light or something such. May have been a few years back.
Only mean we will pick it up by accident and then have to pay AC for it even though we never wanted it.
Evolution did what it "should" had done, got rid of the damn 8. p was clearly superior.
But one do have to ask oneself how the fuck could :-P become ;] !? That's just to freaky, something else must have interfered, neither of the new characters are even in the first one!
IBM has already developed a high-fidelity 3-D copier. They scrapped the project when they realized they would likely sell only two units.
Maybe it was for the better. Considering Microsoft would pop up and offer to help them improve the software for it later.