The electricity people use? Or just some portion based on percentage of generation?
Only the part that comes from fossil carbon.
Or do you include everyone with wood-burning fireplaces? Do you buy wood pellet stoves for everyone?
No. Whether they are allowed is a separate issue.
More for coal? Less for nuclear?
More tax on coal and less tax on nuclear, yes.
Who is poor? What about the middle class - sounds like AGAIN they get to pay the VAST MAJORITY, when they have already been squeezed and squeezed and have lost the value of their wages for 40 YEARS and now you want to take MORE?? Not only that, you want them to pay more for power AND more for power for the POOR that they are already helping support???
The middle class should, on average, break even. We need to discourage the use of fossil carbon while doing as little harm to the economy as possible. Cap-and-trade is worse.
No, I want people who use more energy to pay more for the environmental consequences. The fact that the rich use more on average means that some poor may gain. I'm ok with that.
As I recall even thorium will only provide several centuries at 100%, though we could increase that by an order of magnitude by developing seawater extraction technology.
You don't get thorium from seawater; there isn't enough there. Uranium can be recovered from the ocean, and there is enough thorium on land to last nearly forever.
Yes, nickel is the most stable isotope, but hydrogen is not. There is quite a bit of energy released by combining a proton with any stable isotope of nickel.
I am not saying that Rossi isn't a fraud. He surely is. There are multiple problems with his demonstration, including the total lack of radiation, the conversion of almost all the nickel to nickel-62, the suspect calorimetry, the disappearance of one isotope of Be and the creation of another. But a lack of energy from combining nickel and hydrogen isn't one of them.
In their conference call Tesla stated their intention was to continue using cylindrical cells, but that the size would be increased by about 30%. Sorry, I didn't save the link.
Nobody is using the size of cells that Tesla claims to be interested in producing. If they get cheap enough companies might design some products around them, but, for example, they will be too fat for a cell phone.
Of course Tesla might make other sizes, but I doubt they will be in any hurry to do that.
Listing two obvious fallacies doesn't prove the initial statement is one, although at best it could only be true of sulfur based pollution. Of course, sulfur dioxide helps keep the planet cool anyhow, so maybe we shouldn't count it if it is released in the open ocean.
The electrolytes used in lithium ion batteries don't use water. Water is unstable at those voltages.
Of course, the factory must use some water, if only for the employees drinking. I don't know how much, though. Perhaps it is worth mentioning that there appears to be a small river near the site.
I don't see any problems with carbon dioxide removal, aside from potential local environmental problems. The methods include reforestation, adding iron to the ocean and grinding up serpentine.
Solar radiation management, like adding sulfates to the air, has lots of global environmental effects, and it doesn't do anything about acidification of the oceans.
Tapes has a crapload of drawbacks, write speed, read speed, the fact it's sequential (random access is painful) but it remains popular because you can drop it, smash it, submerge and then freeze it and all you have to do is roll the tape into a new case.
Maybe they have fixed it, but I heard some old stories about dropping tapes corrupting them.
Nicely written post, but you don't know what you're talking about.
Hydrogen is not the strongest reducing agent amount the stable elements. If you go by electronegativity it is cesium. Cesium is rather heavy, though.
Lithium would make a very good cathode (if we could just control the dendrites), but it's not what lithium-ion batteries use. Transition metal compounds are far from ideal for cathodes, but they have the advantage that we can make them work pretty well.
Lithium-sulfur is potentially the next battery after lithium-ion, if only we can make them last long enough.
Slashdot Mirror
Gallium, indium, and tantalum are not rare earths. They are all much to rare for that.
All fossil carbon.
Only the part that comes from fossil carbon.
No. Whether they are allowed is a separate issue.
More tax on coal and less tax on nuclear, yes.
The middle class should, on average, break even. We need to discourage the use of fossil carbon while doing as little harm to the economy as possible. Cap-and-trade is worse.
No, I want people who use more energy to pay more for the environmental consequences. The fact that the rich use more on average means that some poor may gain. I'm ok with that.
Somebody should go to jail over this.
It won't happen, though.
I think a carbon tax is the only workable plan. If you rebate the tax on a per capita basis the poor should end up with more.
Finding the political will to do this may be difficult.
Finding a solution is easy. In fact, there are several of them. Getting everybody follow one is hard, and many don't see the need for any of them.
You don't get thorium from seawater; there isn't enough there. Uranium can be recovered from the ocean, and there is enough thorium on land to last nearly forever.
Yes, nickel is the most stable isotope, but hydrogen is not. There is quite a bit of energy released by combining a proton with any stable isotope of nickel.
I am not saying that Rossi isn't a fraud. He surely is. There are multiple problems with his demonstration, including the total lack of radiation, the conversion of almost all the nickel to nickel-62, the suspect calorimetry, the disappearance of one isotope of Be and the creation of another. But a lack of energy from combining nickel and hydrogen isn't one of them.
In the Kara Sea? That is a much rougher place to work than in the Gulf of Mexico. I'm sure they will eventually manage, but I wouldn't call it easy.
Pretty smart. There were Italian scientists convicted of not warning about an earthquake.
I voted for Kang.
Really, he was on the ballot.
In their conference call Tesla stated their intention was to continue using cylindrical cells, but that the size would be increased by about 30%. Sorry, I didn't save the link.
No, that would be tidal power. The wave energy comes mostly from the wind. The main side effect that occurs to me would be less coastal erosion.
Nobody is using the size of cells that Tesla claims to be interested in producing. If they get cheap enough companies might design some products around them, but, for example, they will be too fat for a cell phone.
Of course Tesla might make other sizes, but I doubt they will be in any hurry to do that.
Heh. I had no idea that was a real word when I wrote it.
No, it's an idiotism. But dictionaries are happy to reflect that usage nowadays.
Listing two obvious fallacies doesn't prove the initial statement is one, although at best it could only be true of sulfur based pollution. Of course, sulfur dioxide helps keep the planet cool anyhow, so maybe we shouldn't count it if it is released in the open ocean.
A 30 mile range? What kind junk are the buying?
A BYD electric bus has a nominal range of 155 miles. It sounds much more reasonable to me.
No, it is the Los Angeles Times. There are many Times in the world, the summary should reflect that.
The electrolytes used in lithium ion batteries don't use water. Water is unstable at those voltages.
Of course, the factory must use some water, if only for the employees drinking. I don't know how much, though. Perhaps it is worth mentioning that there appears to be a small river near the site.
I don't see any problems with carbon dioxide removal, aside from potential local environmental problems. The methods include reforestation, adding iron to the ocean and grinding up serpentine.
Solar radiation management, like adding sulfates to the air, has lots of global environmental effects, and it doesn't do anything about acidification of the oceans.
It's best to consider these separately.
Maybe they have fixed it, but I heard some old stories about dropping tapes corrupting them.
The lithium in a modern battery is not aqueous, which is the default in your table. What the result would be in a modern electrolyte, I don't know.
Nicely written post, but you don't know what you're talking about.
Hydrogen is not the strongest reducing agent amount the stable elements. If you go by electronegativity it is cesium. Cesium is rather heavy, though.
Lithium would make a very good cathode (if we could just control the dendrites), but it's not what lithium-ion batteries use. Transition metal compounds are far from ideal for cathodes, but they have the advantage that we can make them work pretty well.
Lithium-sulfur is potentially the next battery after lithium-ion, if only we can make them last long enough.
This asteroid is only around 1 km in diameter. An impact would be distinctly annoying, but civilization, and most people, should survive.