Compressed air systems are about the most inefficient form of energy storage I can think of
Do I have to say it a third time? Point missed entirely. Abandoned salt mines (in use) and plastic bags underwater (proposed) come very cheap so throwing away vast amounts of energy no longer matters so much. It's just one of many examples (like the far more practical pump storage) where cheaper storage costs are more important than having some incredibly expansive banks of shortlived batteries.
Mechanical energy storage systems such as compressed air also have to deal with the issue of component stress. If you're storing a few megajoules of energy in a pressure tank's walls
Once again - salt mines and plastic bags underwater. Rock and water pressure do the job. That's why they have been suggested and not enormous steel storage tanks.
I thought the line "The storage cost is potentially dirt cheap which outweighs the very lossy conversion to electricity" would actually be read before people started posting replies. The point is that it is a tradeoff - maybe I should have only mentioned pump storage to avoid people who tilt at windmills, but the windmill one is such an extreme (very lossy but with enough very cheap storage that no longer matters as much) that I thought it would illustrate the issue better.
If you see something being critical of people across party lines as being partisan then there is something very wrong with that perception is there not?
You never refuted my facts... and come up with a reasonable conclusion
You had a distraction and then made up shit to try to support a silly and trivial dispute between semantics, common use and job descriptions while still being utterly wrong in your definition of a word so that it would not work in naval, software, locomotive etc use - and you are still rambling on as if you have proved something instead of just ignoring the inconvenient. Why should I try to refute a distraction that strays from the topic other than to put in work to give you some form of entertainment and give you some sort of feeling of control? Fuck that for a joke.
Again, you don't know my background at all do you?
A bit slow aren't you? Remember you said I was not an engineer - in that case it was an "epic fail" due to you not knowing my background at all. Can't you recognise an attempt to get you to look in the mirror at yourself even when your nose is being rubbed forcefully in it?
Well, I consider your complaint about the last Bush's activities as president to be mostly partisan rhetoric
That's a bit of a copout and incorrect as well. Do I have to mention Johnson to provide balance before being taken seriously? Baby Bush made Nixon look good, let alone just about everyone else.
what Bush SAID on that carrier was fairly accurate and lined up perfectly with his current understanding of the situation in Iraq
So he should get a free pass for being an overly-optimistic idiot that rarely bothered to turn up for work? None of those things are virtues in a President.
the insurgent problem that no one expected
I think you and Baby Bush were the only two not to see that coming - Bush's advisors, the press and the entire military could see it coming and were discussing it even before going in. Daddy Bush gave it as a major reason not to go in ten years before FFS!
That is so screwed up and far worse than I imagined. Let's hope that such copyright idiocy remains only in the USA since the death plus 70 is stupid enough without adding the rest onto the pile.
You missed the entire point. It's not much use being efficient if the expense is astronomical at the scale you want to operate at - hence hydro pump storage dams instead of a few million large lithium batteries.
I think I phrased it badly and misrembered the quote. The situation was apparently that one force found itself facing several times more Russian tanks than were thought to exist in total and then more just kept coming.
I didn't mean the "Industrial Military Complex" - I forgot to point out that it's more those of Cheney's connections on the resource and reconstruction side that did, and are still, doing very well out of being granted resources, taxpayers money and opportunities out of the conflict. It wouldn't be such a big deal if others got a chance to do the work instead of it being handed out to a very small number of companies well connected to the executive branch of the time.
If you're saying that Cheney's friends in the Industrial Military Complex made out like bandits that's probably true. I am not actually sure what that has to do with the claim that the AC made
The blatant war profiteering means conspiracy theories about the war being planned for profit are hard to debunk even if they are bullshit. That's all I was trying to say.
Even without that argument the writer has been deceased for 75 years so the extensions should not apply either. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philip_Francis_Nowlan
Doesn't the current mouse protection rule set the clock to death of creator plus 70 years for copyright? Shouldn't that be not only enough for anyone but utterly overboard?
However politically well connected companies are getting the oil whether it gets to the USA or not - that's one of the problems. Whether it was the reason or not (it probably wasn't) Cheney's connections did very well out of it indeed, so the "it wasn't for the oil argument" falls flat even if it was originally true.
It was three times into Iraq, the first was to get the overnight reflagged "Kuwaiti" tankers out for Saddaam and was mostly a series of Naval engagements. Not bringing a minesweeper due to it being a "show the flag" thing was a stupid mistake. Having a paranoid itchy fingered idiot with no combat experience in a place where he could shoot down an airliner was another. The motives appear to be far more base than getting oil. Didn't the "mission accomplished" photoshoot prove that to you? An idiot wanted to be a "popular wartime President" and was happy to have a lot of people die to do it. Johnson did the same sort of thing. History is full of petty pricks directing the might of the USA to counterproductive ends, some not even at the top like that corrupt Nevada senator that bankrolled some people in Afganistan that we later ended up fighting.
Not really. Heat can be useful on it's own. For example a co-generation plant in Australia uses low levels of heat to warm water for an aquaculture project. Storing as heat gives you plenty of options of what to do with it, as well as potentially providing large scale storage for far more capacity than could be gained for the same cost with batteries or capacitors even if it is far more lossy than either.
Another example is offshore windmills producing compressed air stored in underwater balloons (or in salt mines on land). The storage cost is potentially dirt cheap which outweighs the very lossy conversion to electricity.
You probably know all this, but equating all of the above to batteries just dumbs the entire discussion down to "why not use batteries", which is not something for this time when batteries still suck (just a lot less than they used to).
I didn't see that article and the one I did see said nothing about it being returned low level waste after processing to remove the high level waste. It's a pity it's vitrified and not synroc. With the latter storage is far simpler and transport is not much of a risk. Vitrified waste will leach out over time (many years) if there is water present while synroc is not soluble over time.
"Can you provide such evidence?" is pretty fucking insulting when I already have and is the passive/agressive way of calling someone a liar to their face while hiding behind the figleaf of pretending you are asking a question instead of calling someone a liar - as you well know. "I take it that you don't have an engineering degree or you would know that" and denying my honest response was of course two instances intended to be an insult, as you well know. The icing on the cake was some shit about me providing enough info for you to do some sort of background check - now that's just getting beyond weird.
The truly amusing thing was the "I take it that you don't have an engineering degree" and your backpedalling that implies you do not but were willing to pretend you did - the exact thing you are accusing me of doing, which I would never bother since years of experience always counts for more than a undergraduate degree anyway. You really are an amusing piece of work, and I'm not going to roll over and let you "win" your childish troll game. Thin skinned piece of shit is far too accurate a description for you to be an insult anyway.
So then - why is it necessary for me to prove that I am a professional engineer just because you can not relate to common usage of a term? Can you prove you are a high school English teacher? That would trump whatever I think the word means:)
Basically no one can challenge your facts because in your mind only your facts are acceptable
Correct - because otherwise they are not actual facts are they? If they can be refuted, as distinct from distractions like your antics, they are no longer facts.
But if you release documents you are consider a thief or a traitor as well. The whistleblower always loses if they are leaking against someone powerful enough.
However underestimating the capabilities of the Russian Military is plain dumb
I remember a quote from a WWII German general that went something like this: You know those four Russian tank divisions we were facing? So far we have destroyed twelve of them.
We don't have to imagine, we only have to remember Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, Afganistan and the various actions in Central America - all places where those grieving parents knew that the government had the bomb but didn't use it. So I really don't get why you wrote the above comment without thinking of something so obvious.
Read about him, especially prior to being President. It will make a lot more sense. One thing to take note of was the increasing alarm about the Russians and fear of what would happen if they owned Korea and Japan. In hindsight it appears that was when US leadership was going from considering Stalin as "Uncle Joe" to finally starting to listen to what their intelligence, what the Brits and what anybody in the USA who could speak Russian was saying about him. Showing off the nukes to the USSR was a major part of the reason. Ego was another, especially with the second bomb.
Death adders are very small and slow as snakes go which apparently makes them more prone to bite than flee as the larger poisonous snakes usually do. However they are uncommon. I've only seen one up close on a narrow rock ledge on a mountain - either asleep, dead or deciding to stay coiled up and not move. Either way it was a relief to get off that ledge after what seemed like forever but was probably two minutes. I know it was meant to be a silly post above, but we do have enough snakes that even those in politics have to deal with them: http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-10-26/nt-politician-kezia-purick-removes-another-snake/6885284
Slashdot Mirror
Do I have to say it a third time? Point missed entirely. Abandoned salt mines (in use) and plastic bags underwater (proposed) come very cheap so throwing away vast amounts of energy no longer matters so much. It's just one of many examples (like the far more practical pump storage) where cheaper storage costs are more important than having some incredibly expansive banks of shortlived batteries.
Once again - salt mines and plastic bags underwater. Rock and water pressure do the job. That's why they have been suggested and not enormous steel storage tanks.
I thought the line "The storage cost is potentially dirt cheap which outweighs the very lossy conversion to electricity" would actually be read before people started posting replies. The point is that it is a tradeoff - maybe I should have only mentioned pump storage to avoid people who tilt at windmills, but the windmill one is such an extreme (very lossy but with enough very cheap storage that no longer matters as much) that I thought it would illustrate the issue better.
With respect, US tank forces did not even exist early in the war and they did not go from zero to very good in a single step.
If you see something being critical of people across party lines as being partisan then there is something very wrong with that perception is there not?
I don't get to "own" facts and neither do you.
You had a distraction and then made up shit to try to support a silly and trivial dispute between semantics, common use and job descriptions while still being utterly wrong in your definition of a word so that it would not work in naval, software, locomotive etc use - and you are still rambling on as if you have proved something instead of just ignoring the inconvenient. Why should I try to refute a distraction that strays from the topic other than to put in work to give you some form of entertainment and give you some sort of feeling of control? Fuck that for a joke.
A bit slow aren't you? Remember you said I was not an engineer - in that case it was an "epic fail" due to you not knowing my background at all. Can't you recognise an attempt to get you to look in the mirror at yourself even when your nose is being rubbed forcefully in it?
That's a bit of a copout and incorrect as well. Do I have to mention Johnson to provide balance before being taken seriously? Baby Bush made Nixon look good, let alone just about everyone else.
So he should get a free pass for being an overly-optimistic idiot that rarely bothered to turn up for work? None of those things are virtues in a President.
I think you and Baby Bush were the only two not to see that coming - Bush's advisors, the press and the entire military could see it coming and were discussing it even before going in. Daddy Bush gave it as a major reason not to go in ten years before FFS!
That is so screwed up and far worse than I imagined. Let's hope that such copyright idiocy remains only in the USA since the death plus 70 is stupid enough without adding the rest onto the pile.
You missed the entire point.
It's not much use being efficient if the expense is astronomical at the scale you want to operate at - hence hydro pump storage dams instead of a few million large lithium batteries.
I think I phrased it badly and misrembered the quote. The situation was apparently that one force found itself facing several times more Russian tanks than were thought to exist in total and then more just kept coming.
I didn't mean the "Industrial Military Complex" - I forgot to point out that it's more those of Cheney's connections on the resource and reconstruction side that did, and are still, doing very well out of being granted resources, taxpayers money and opportunities out of the conflict. It wouldn't be such a big deal if others got a chance to do the work instead of it being handed out to a very small number of companies well connected to the executive branch of the time.
The blatant war profiteering means conspiracy theories about the war being planned for profit are hard to debunk even if they are bullshit. That's all I was trying to say.
Even without that argument the writer has been deceased for 75 years so the extensions should not apply either.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philip_Francis_Nowlan
Doesn't the current mouse protection rule set the clock to death of creator plus 70 years for copyright?
Shouldn't that be not only enough for anyone but utterly overboard?
However politically well connected companies are getting the oil whether it gets to the USA or not - that's one of the problems. Whether it was the reason or not (it probably wasn't) Cheney's connections did very well out of it indeed, so the "it wasn't for the oil argument" falls flat even if it was originally true.
It was three times into Iraq, the first was to get the overnight reflagged "Kuwaiti" tankers out for Saddaam and was mostly a series of Naval engagements. Not bringing a minesweeper due to it being a "show the flag" thing was a stupid mistake. Having a paranoid itchy fingered idiot with no combat experience in a place where he could shoot down an airliner was another.
The motives appear to be far more base than getting oil. Didn't the "mission accomplished" photoshoot prove that to you? An idiot wanted to be a "popular wartime President" and was happy to have a lot of people die to do it. Johnson did the same sort of thing. History is full of petty pricks directing the might of the USA to counterproductive ends, some not even at the top like that corrupt Nevada senator that bankrolled some people in Afganistan that we later ended up fighting.
Not really. Heat can be useful on it's own. For example a co-generation plant in Australia uses low levels of heat to warm water for an aquaculture project.
Storing as heat gives you plenty of options of what to do with it, as well as potentially providing large scale storage for far more capacity than could be gained for the same cost with batteries or capacitors even if it is far more lossy than either.
Another example is offshore windmills producing compressed air stored in underwater balloons (or in salt mines on land). The storage cost is potentially dirt cheap which outweighs the very lossy conversion to electricity.
You probably know all this, but equating all of the above to batteries just dumbs the entire discussion down to "why not use batteries", which is not something for this time when batteries still suck (just a lot less than they used to).
I didn't see that article and the one I did see said nothing about it being returned low level waste after processing to remove the high level waste. It's a pity it's vitrified and not synroc. With the latter storage is far simpler and transport is not much of a risk. Vitrified waste will leach out over time (many years) if there is water present while synroc is not soluble over time.
"Can you provide such evidence?" is pretty fucking insulting when I already have and is the passive/agressive way of calling someone a liar to their face while hiding behind the figleaf of pretending you are asking a question instead of calling someone a liar - as you well know.
"I take it that you don't have an engineering degree or you would know that" and denying my honest response was of course two instances intended to be an insult, as you well know. The icing on the cake was some shit about me providing enough info for you to do some sort of background check - now that's just getting beyond weird.
The truly amusing thing was the "I take it that you don't have an engineering degree" and your backpedalling that implies you do not but were willing to pretend you did - the exact thing you are accusing me of doing, which I would never bother since years of experience always counts for more than a undergraduate degree anyway. You really are an amusing piece of work, and I'm not going to roll over and let you "win" your childish troll game. Thin skinned piece of shit is far too accurate a description for you to be an insult anyway.
Can you prove you are a high school English teacher? That would trump whatever I think the word means
Correct - because otherwise they are not actual facts are they? If they can be refuted, as distinct from distractions like your antics, they are no longer facts.
Sadly the Yowie is now extinct in Australia but it has been sighted in Florida:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yowie_%28chocolate%29
They were a good replacement for easter eggs and I've used many of the plastic animals inside as gaming figures.
But if you release documents you are consider a thief or a traitor as well. The whistleblower always loses if they are leaking against someone powerful enough.
I remember a quote from a WWII German general that went something like this:
You know those four Russian tank divisions we were facing? So far we have destroyed twelve of them.
We don't have to imagine, we only have to remember Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, Afganistan and the various actions in Central America - all places where those grieving parents knew that the government had the bomb but didn't use it.
So I really don't get why you wrote the above comment without thinking of something so obvious.
Read about him, especially prior to being President. It will make a lot more sense.
One thing to take note of was the increasing alarm about the Russians and fear of what would happen if they owned Korea and Japan. In hindsight it appears that was when US leadership was going from considering Stalin as "Uncle Joe" to finally starting to listen to what their intelligence, what the Brits and what anybody in the USA who could speak Russian was saying about him. Showing off the nukes to the USSR was a major part of the reason. Ego was another, especially with the second bomb.
Death adders are very small and slow as snakes go which apparently makes them more prone to bite than flee as the larger poisonous snakes usually do. However they are uncommon. I've only seen one up close on a narrow rock ledge on a mountain - either asleep, dead or deciding to stay coiled up and not move. Either way it was a relief to get off that ledge after what seemed like forever but was probably two minutes.
I know it was meant to be a silly post above, but we do have enough snakes that even those in politics have to deal with them:
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-10-26/nt-politician-kezia-purick-removes-another-snake/6885284