Sounds like a contribution-in-kind to Democrats. And therefore a violation of campaign finance laws!
Thank you for admitting that the Republican platform is one of bigotry and racism (since you seem to be insinuating that no Republican could possible oppose such shenanigans).
shallow assumption that solar panels and electric cars are going to solve all the problems
Did I say anything like that? I merely mentioned another example where some need could be fulfilled with lesser use of resources. That's obviously only one problem of the many we're dealing with, but that doesn't make it unimportant.
Ehm...so for example using smaller cars with better mileage to commute isn't more environmentally friendly either, according to you?https://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=12644750&cid=57354556#
Less resource use to accomplish the required tasks? Both in manufacturing (more chips from the same amount of manufacturing input) and in operation (less power used)?
According to Eurostat, Bulgaria *is* on average the cheapest EU country when it comes to electricity. Perhaps in relative terms (normalized to income), the situation is different.
I've checked the current local rates, and for a dollar, you can buy approximately 22 MJ in gasoline, or approximately 50 MJ in electricity. So you get about 2.3 times as much energy for your money. This is without considering drivetrain efficiency. Wildly assuming 30% for ICEs (ICE and gear losses) and 80% for a battery drivetrain (charging, electric motor and gear losses), electricity becomes about six times more cost-efficient when it comes to vehicles. And recharging during the day seems like the rarer case.
Most people sleep at night. And that "charging facility" is a socket in your house, unless you install a semi-fast charger offered by our local utility company, which even eliminates the "car is not available at night" part. And we actually do have fixed rates for electric vehicles that you can sign up for. I've just checked the price and the night rate is around $0.07/kWh, even less than what I thought it was. I guess the prospect gets more and more intriguing every year!
If you could power your car with either $5-$6/US gal gasoline, or with a $0.1/kWh "night rate" for electricity, what would you choose? Regardless of whether you view those particular number as high or low.
On a large scale, those 70% you get from plain old alkaline electrolyzers should be enough if you have access to excess generation that nobody knows what to do with.
That research is still going to be useful for the future. It seems though that it makes a lot more sense for, for example, ships. Electric trains not connected to the grid seem like a bit of a gimmick.
Percentage is one thing, and it's nice to have it high, but some countries have a large electrified rail network not for the reason of percentage but because they have a large rail network, period. Despite the percentage difference, Spain still seems to have 20% more population per 1 km of electrified rail than Germany.
Germany still seems to rank pretty high when it comes to rain electrification, but the one thing that is difficult to glean from rail inventory stats is the percentage of traffic taking place electrified/non-electrified. Germany's railway network seems to be around 50% electrified, but how many passenger-kilometers are electrified, so as to speak? In any case, more power to you! (Oh, wait...)
How do religious people justify arriving at roughly similar ideas of morality when they often believe significantly different things? For that matter, the largest somewhat compact religious group is like what, 30% of the world's population? Assuming that at most one religion can be right, doesn't this mean that at least 70% of people fervently believe in something that is provably at least largely wrong? That would seem to suggest that religion is a very unreliable way of getting information on things. However, that morals in particular largely coincide, as opposed to the other teachings, doesn't seem to support the case that they have anything to do with religion itself.
Slashdot Mirror
Or increase the Pigouvian taxes and put them to good use?
Around 25000 mph is escape velocity even at lowest conceivable perigee levels.
But have you ever been able to successfully capture your junk?
To be fair, being dismayed at the presence of a senile idiot in the White House doesn't exactly have leftism as a prerequisite.
Wasn't PageRank always a mechanism of editorial control?
Not overcharging is now called a "giveaway". Did you want good 5G service
Well, I guess you can at least rest assured that there won't be any "giveaway" from the companies to their customers.
Sounds like a contribution-in-kind to Democrats. And therefore a violation of campaign finance laws!
Thank you for admitting that the Republican platform is one of bigotry and racism (since you seem to be insinuating that no Republican could possible oppose such shenanigans).
Google needs to realize that by moving away from a neutral platform to one that is politically biased that they have lost the public trust.
As opposed to all those companies exercising their corporate personhood's right to free speech that haven't lost the public trust?
Show me an architecture that would make me want it. With C++ as a platform language
"Show me a new vehicle to replace the carriage. It has to include a horse."
Since their ownership exponentially grows
Probably sigmoidally, actually.
shallow assumption that solar panels and electric cars are going to solve all the problems
Did I say anything like that? I merely mentioned another example where some need could be fulfilled with lesser use of resources. That's obviously only one problem of the many we're dealing with, but that doesn't make it unimportant.
That still doesn't make FecesBook not a bad thing.
Ehm...so for example using smaller cars with better mileage to commute isn't more environmentally friendly either, according to you?https://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=12644750&cid=57354556#
Less resource use to accomplish the required tasks? Both in manufacturing (more chips from the same amount of manufacturing input) and in operation (less power used)?
According to Eurostat, Bulgaria *is* on average the cheapest EU country when it comes to electricity. Perhaps in relative terms (normalized to income), the situation is different.
I've checked the current local rates, and for a dollar, you can buy approximately 22 MJ in gasoline, or approximately 50 MJ in electricity. So you get about 2.3 times as much energy for your money. This is without considering drivetrain efficiency. Wildly assuming 30% for ICEs (ICE and gear losses) and 80% for a battery drivetrain (charging, electric motor and gear losses), electricity becomes about six times more cost-efficient when it comes to vehicles. And recharging during the day seems like the rarer case.
Most people sleep at night. And that "charging facility" is a socket in your house, unless you install a semi-fast charger offered by our local utility company, which even eliminates the "car is not available at night" part. And we actually do have fixed rates for electric vehicles that you can sign up for. I've just checked the price and the night rate is around $0.07/kWh, even less than what I thought it was. I guess the prospect gets more and more intriguing every year!
Sounds like what I'd expect, namely that those routes got electrified that are more frequently used. Thanks.
I strongly doubt you'll find many non-electrified long-distance routes in the region.
If you could power your car with either $5-$6/US gal gasoline, or with a $0.1/kWh "night rate" for electricity, what would you choose? Regardless of whether you view those particular number as high or low.
Electrolysis from PV isn't all that great.
On a large scale, those 70% you get from plain old alkaline electrolyzers should be enough if you have access to excess generation that nobody knows what to do with.
That research is still going to be useful for the future. It seems though that it makes a lot more sense for, for example, ships. Electric trains not connected to the grid seem like a bit of a gimmick.
Percentage is one thing, and it's nice to have it high, but some countries have a large electrified rail network not for the reason of percentage but because they have a large rail network, period. Despite the percentage difference, Spain still seems to have 20% more population per 1 km of electrified rail than Germany.
Germany still seems to rank pretty high when it comes to rain electrification, but the one thing that is difficult to glean from rail inventory stats is the percentage of traffic taking place electrified/non-electrified. Germany's railway network seems to be around 50% electrified, but how many passenger-kilometers are electrified, so as to speak? In any case, more power to you! (Oh, wait...)
How do religious people justify arriving at roughly similar ideas of morality when they often believe significantly different things? For that matter, the largest somewhat compact religious group is like what, 30% of the world's population? Assuming that at most one religion can be right, doesn't this mean that at least 70% of people fervently believe in something that is provably at least largely wrong? That would seem to suggest that religion is a very unreliable way of getting information on things. However, that morals in particular largely coincide, as opposed to the other teachings, doesn't seem to support the case that they have anything to do with religion itself.
Twitch may be the damage here, and Chinese internet just routed around it.