Thorium is potentially even more expensive than current proven reactor designs that at the moment are themselves three times more expensive than the currently available renewable generation.
If it comes from a theorem prover, and includes a trace of the proof, then it can be checked with a proof checker. Proof checkers are generally much simpler than theorem provers, because they only need to mechanically check that the proof trace is consistent, whereas a theorem prover has to *find* that trace. Worst case is that you check the steps yourself.
You seem to be somewhat confused. I first gave you the HYPOTHETICAL numbers that you'd NEED to reach your alleged "between 65% and 70%" of round-trip efficiency, namely around 82% for both (or a geometric average), since 82% * 82% = ~67%.
THEN I cited REAL-WORLD figures, which are around 45 kWh to synthesize 1 kg of hydrogen - around 74% efficiency considering hydrogen's LLV for electrolysis, and 44%-57% efficiency from hydrogen's LLV to electricity in a REAL-WORLD fuel cell. That's a REAL-WORLD round-trip efficiency of around 32%-42%.
many car parks in northern Scandinavian countries have power outlets for block heaters, which can be used to great benefit for heating up electric car batteries and keeping the car's interior warm. This mitigates a disadvantage of electric cars in polar conditions.
"Mitigates a disadvantage"? One would think it does more than that. The batteries could be heated from these power outlets *by charging them*. On the other hand, heating the engine block on an ICE car won't make it magically materialize more gasoline in its tank.
You do know that the ideal insulation material is a vacuum? Which weighs nothing
Vacuum insulation in practice most of the time is about the weight of the structure that needs to contain the vacuum without buckling. Since modern BEV batteries are large and flat, vacuum insulation is a little bit problematic for them.
No, depending how you do it it is between 65% and 70%
Between 65% and 70% would necessitate both the electrolyser and the fuel cell to be on average 82% efficient. This is simply not happening with existing technology. Practical fuel cells reach 50%-60% efficiency. Meanwhile, practical electrolyzers need around 45 kWh per kg of generated hydrogen, so they're around 70%-75% efficient. So the overall roundtrip from electricity to hydrogen to electricity is between 35%-45% for pure hydrogen.
Extra battery insulation or "region-specific" battery insulation/thermal solution means that heating needs are severely reduced. It should match well the concept of electric cars being connected in parking spots, which is the likely way forward with BEVs.
You have to look at real-world driving patterns at one point, not on some fictional scenarios you apparently imagine happening every single day. Also, the energy return of hydrocarbon synthesis is less than half of the one of charging batteries, so there's that. Plus there's also the advantages of widespread V1G/V2G deployment from the grid's perspective.
From what I can tell, turning CO2 back into gasoline using solar power towers in deserts, and "burning" that in fuel cells, is still more efficient than the whole solar-to-hvdc-to-battery-charging-to-battery-using-to-electric-motors procedure.
"More efficient" how? Even just electrolysis+fuel cell with pure hydrogen has a 40% round trip efficiency, and that's even before you try to make a hydrocarbon out of it. "The whole solar-to-hvdc-to-battery-charging-to-battery-using-to-electric-motors" is somewhere around 80% or so.
Are you seriously saying that you know all of the debris paths and speeds of both the explosive device and the satellites it destroys? Stuff flies everywhere, ad different speeds and different directions. Especially your direct hit scenario, which will be very asymmetrical, and send shrapnel all over the place.
If you consider the facts that only debris with only inclination changes isn't brought deeper into the atmosphere at some point and that most debris is small and even less aerodynamic than the original satellite, it becomes clear that around 300 km, several weeks or months does indeed seem like a reasonable estimate for a large part of the debris. Here's an analysis for a comparable US test.
Slashdot Mirror
And fox hunting?
Don't forget to add driver's net wealth into the equation.
If there's cooling, you just burn more coal. It kills two birds with one stone.
Thorium is potentially even more expensive than current proven reactor designs that at the moment are themselves three times more expensive than the currently available renewable generation.
The proposed cure is Marxism.
Only in the eyes of idiots for whom anything that is not libertarianism is Marxism. Fortunately not that many people are *that* stupid.
If it comes from a theorem prover, and includes a trace of the proof, then it can be checked with a proof checker. Proof checkers are generally much simpler than theorem provers, because they only need to mechanically check that the proof trace is consistent, whereas a theorem prover has to *find* that trace. Worst case is that you check the steps yourself.
In many places, even what you can do with your property is decided by law and courts. Discriminatory rules often draw frowns from laws and judges.
That depends on the power. How much power are we talking about? And the fine seems rather hypocritical.
You seem to be somewhat confused. I first gave you the HYPOTHETICAL numbers that you'd NEED to reach your alleged "between 65% and 70%" of round-trip efficiency, namely around 82% for both (or a geometric average), since 82% * 82% = ~67%.
THEN I cited REAL-WORLD figures, which are around 45 kWh to synthesize 1 kg of hydrogen - around 74% efficiency considering hydrogen's LLV for electrolysis, and 44%-57% efficiency from hydrogen's LLV to electricity in a REAL-WORLD fuel cell. That's a REAL-WORLD round-trip efficiency of around 32%-42%.
I did not "suddenly drop" anything, the efficiencies are still the same. I've taken fuel cell system efficiencies from PEM Fuel Cells: Theory And Practice, 2nd Ed., Table 9-7 on page 367, and electrolyzer power use from the energy.gov page I linked above.
And why would systemd need to interfere with *his* software, for that matter?
You flash the device...with what? The things he has to write? Maybe *that* is why he cares, perhaps?
As opposed to all the other more lightweight managers that do the same thing?
82% * 75% is already 64% ...
And where do you get those 82% and 75% when in reality you're offered equipment with 75% and 50%? :-p 75% * 50% = 37.5%.
many car parks in northern Scandinavian countries have power outlets for block heaters, which can be used to great benefit for heating up electric car batteries and keeping the car's interior warm. This mitigates a disadvantage of electric cars in polar conditions.
"Mitigates a disadvantage"? One would think it does more than that. The batteries could be heated from these power outlets *by charging them*. On the other hand, heating the engine block on an ICE car won't make it magically materialize more gasoline in its tank.
You do know that the ideal insulation material is a vacuum? Which weighs nothing
Vacuum insulation in practice most of the time is about the weight of the structure that needs to contain the vacuum without buckling. Since modern BEV batteries are large and flat, vacuum insulation is a little bit problematic for them.
No, depending how you do it it is between 65% and 70%
Between 65% and 70% would necessitate both the electrolyser and the fuel cell to be on average 82% efficient. This is simply not happening with existing technology. Practical fuel cells reach 50%-60% efficiency. Meanwhile, practical electrolyzers need around 45 kWh per kg of generated hydrogen, so they're around 70%-75% efficient. So the overall roundtrip from electricity to hydrogen to electricity is between 35%-45% for pure hydrogen.
high end systems obviously reaching over 90%.
I'm not even going to comment on that.
Brazillions of kilowatthours.
Extra battery insulation or "region-specific" battery insulation/thermal solution means that heating needs are severely reduced. It should match well the concept of electric cars being connected in parking spots, which is the likely way forward with BEVs.
You have to look at real-world driving patterns at one point, not on some fictional scenarios you apparently imagine happening every single day. Also, the energy return of hydrocarbon synthesis is less than half of the one of charging batteries, so there's that. Plus there's also the advantages of widespread V1G/V2G deployment from the grid's perspective.
From what I can tell, turning CO2 back into gasoline using solar power towers in deserts, and "burning" that in fuel cells, is still more efficient than the whole solar-to-hvdc-to-battery-charging-to-battery-using-to-electric-motors procedure.
"More efficient" how? Even just electrolysis+fuel cell with pure hydrogen has a 40% round trip efficiency, and that's even before you try to make a hydrocarbon out of it. "The whole solar-to-hvdc-to-battery-charging-to-battery-using-to-electric-motors" is somewhere around 80% or so.
...and if only there existed such a thing as insulation? Surely that's a fable as well.
And they burn their garbage for energy.
Getting rid of garbage is probably the greater motivation. It's not like they have too few energy sources.
That only works if one of the copies is the original unwatermarked one. But usually, you'll only have access to watermarked copies.
I think the point was precisely that you'd compare two different watermarked versions.
Isn't this called "workplace education"? The company trains you, and then it takes away a part of what you've created.
Are you seriously saying that you know all of the debris paths and speeds of both the explosive device and the satellites it destroys? Stuff flies everywhere, ad different speeds and different directions. Especially your direct hit scenario, which will be very asymmetrical, and send shrapnel all over the place.
If you consider the facts that only debris with only inclination changes isn't brought deeper into the atmosphere at some point and that most debris is small and even less aerodynamic than the original satellite, it becomes clear that around 300 km, several weeks or months does indeed seem like a reasonable estimate for a large part of the debris. Here's an analysis for a comparable US test.