The seismometer network used to detect nuclear weapons testing were what gave scientists the data to first hypothesize tectonic plate movement. I doubt the foreign nuclear test information wasn't classified. Military sharing of information has been going on for 50 years.
That's Obama's budget, actually. Now, to go with your numbers and add them into the above, as you seem to incist,
Lets see, TARP was $700B, which means that the total military spending in that $1.6T would be $900B, which if we add to what is in the above, means that the military budget would be $900B out of $3747.9B, would be a hair over 24%. Still a far cry from the half being claimed. Care to try again?
And let's not forget who loaned Bush / America the money for the foreign policy debacle that was Iraq, as well as the bank bailout after all those 'free market' idiots enabled the bankers to play roulette with our money... China (or are you arguing that China is not a tyranny?)
China holds $739.6B of US debt, which they have acquired over 30 years. The total outstanding debt is over $11,342.7B. Roughly 6.5%. China didn't finance shit.
How about we stop using half our entire government budget to subsidize the military industrial complex.
Where do you get half from?
Social Security: $749.1B
Medicare/Medicaid: $1058.4B
Interest on Public Debt: $454.5B
Military Budget: $743.2B
Other: $585.9B
The protests we have in the US every year would seem to contradict your theory. The most recent being the tea parties, then there are the G8 protests, NAFTA protests, the protests at the presidential political conventions... Sorry, but the US has protests all the time.
Well, given that the minimum started a few years ago and the earth has been on a cooling trend for the past few years, ending a period of high solar activity in which we were on a warming trend, it would be quite a coincidence that the warming trend happened to end just when the sun had a drastic decrease in solar activity.
The question now being, will it pass the US crash safety tests, as the GP is talking about. While there may be cars out there under 1 ton, I've not seen many (any?) in the US for that specific reason.
Nope, but it is one of the smaller ones. Basically what the op is saying is that the car "would hardly be dangerous" if we got rid of every other car on the road. It's ridiculous to think that is a valid solution. It's like saying that it would be safe to walk down the middle of road, provided you get rid of all the cars. It's simply not going to happen.
It sounds like you've never leased a car before. Maintenance is paid for by the leasee, not the leaser. So they would not have to pay for the repairs, you would.
Except that steel isn't the only metal that corrodes. Copper does as well, especially in a salt environment. Electric hub motors still wear out, whether the electronics need replacement or due to corrosion or other wear and tear, including the bearings. Just because it has fewer moving pieces, doesn't mean it's going to last 20 years maintenance free.
This vehicle would hardly be dangerous at all if we got rid of the rest of the 1 ton+ passenger vehicles.
Considering that the Toyota Prius weighs in at 2,765lb-3042lb, that would be every other car on the road. Meaning your suggestion would be to replace all cars with this one.
It's the controller electronics. The tube is nothing more than mercury vapor surounded by phosphorus. The ballast is what wears out. Part of the ballast is a variable resistor that keeps the current traveling through the vapor below a certain critical amount. You see, as the bulbs get hotter (warm up) the resistance goes down, increasing brightness, current and power consumption. If they get to hot, they explode, as has been found.
No, I thought I'd post it showing a contradiction in your claims. A contradiction that still exists. Propane comes from petroleum sources. It is therefore impossible to use propane while avoiding the whole petroleum infrastructure. Whether we produce it all domestically or not. So long as we are using propane, we are still using the petroleum infrastructure.
It's not being clever, it's not being a genius, it's pointing out a direct contradiction in your claims.
The US has a much dirtier diesel than that in Europe. This is why the low sulfur diesel mentioned in that article is such a big deal. You see, the source of crude oil for Diesel that the US uses is different from the one Europe uses and not all crude is the same. The sulfur content in the crude oil the US uses is significantly higher and is a much heavier crude that requires more refining. From what I've read, there isn't another country in the world currently capable of refining Venezuelan crude other than the US.
The higher sulfur content in the crude oil is either passed through the process until the end or needs to be processed out. Generally, to get diesels to meet the restrictions in the US, there has had to be some additional gadgets in the vehicles. Here's one example, urine (I kid you not) is injected into the diesel cylinders along with the fuel and makes the exhaust cleaner. Not much is required, it's generally refilled when the oil is changed.
There is also the limitations on maximum particle size that can be emitted. Diesel engines normally emit much larger particles than gasoline engines. This has been another thing that has made diesels more expensive and harder to develop for the US market over Europe.
Ok, units change. 21/31MPG equates to 11.2/7.5l/km and 30/41MPG equates to 7.8/5.7l/km. The first pair is for gasoline, the 2nd is for diesel.
Oil is used for milling, enrichment and fabrication? Where? It's all done with electricity which can come from (drum role please) NUCLEAR! About the only possible thing you have is the mining for the trucks, which can eventually be replaced with electric or a biofuel. If nothing else, while very ineficient, you can even manufacture diesel from CO2 and H20 given enough spare electricity using the Fischer-Tropsch process. Further, the building of nuclear recycling and breeder reactors would reduce the need for mining even more.
Quit perpetuating the exponential growth myth. Once any country becomes developed, the birthrate drops. The US currently has a birthrate of about 2.1 It was even at 1.75 for a few years around the mid 70s. If it weren't for immigration, the US population would be static or dropping, the same goes for Europe.
Sorry to burst your bubble, but even non-US auto makers do not offer many vehicles with diesel engines in the US. No car made for Europe would pass the Air Quality tests that the US has. Volks Wagon offers three diesels total and the rest of their cars have shitty mileage. Seriously, 21mpg/31mpg on most of their gasoline cars? The diesels get 30/41. (How does that compare to the EU counterparts?
You're pulling out the wrong number. You want "Net Income". Hell, Gross Profit of $20B is about 40 times what their actual earnings is and does not take into account several other factors such as taxes.
A) We haven't built a plant in 30 years. How do you know that it is expensive when you have no data to back it up? Or have you looked at France's and Japan's data for their standardized reactor design?
B) Chernoby was so completely different from any reactor the US has ever implemented (including the lack of a containment dome) it is just pure FUD to even bring it up.
C) Recycling the so called waste will yield a sizeable amount of fuel and the remaining short lived waste could be stored in the mines the uranium ore came out of in the first place.
D) See C combined with: I thought the idea was to get away from coal?
Oh, and to E from the AC: Actually, we have about a few thousand year supply of Uranium in the US alone (Virginia) and that does not include sea water extraction. Breeder reactors also allow the production of more fuel. It is either a renewable or going to last so long that fusion will come about before we run out.
However, having some fuel such as hydrogen (or propane or ethanol or...), allows for quick filling up. Batteries, for the forseable future, can not be charged quickly. Even if someone came up with a reasonably quick method of doing so, the varrying load on the electric grid would cause instability. Charging a 40kwh batter in 5 minutes would take 2.4MW of power, or about 1000 amps at the standard 240V line (in the US) (oven, dryer). They are usually limited to 50 amps at most. Home electric charging isn't practical. Even using a special recharging station, you would still be pulsing the grid in a way likely to crash it.
One proposed solution is to have a local big battery at a station that is 'trickle charged' from the grid and does a massive dump to the vehicles. This still has issues, but something like this is probably what would be required in the long run.
Lithium-ions are already close to 90% efficient, which no method of producing hydrogen can even approach.
Lithiums are about 99% efficient, actually. Also, it's not just the production of hydrogen that is the problem, it is also the turning of it into electricity that sucks as well. The combined cycle is what you would want to look at (I think 25% is about the total cycle efficiency). Oh, and to be fair, the electric transission grid is ~98% efficient, giving batteries a ~97% efficiency times whatever the source efficiency is.
Slashdot Mirror
The seismometer network used to detect nuclear weapons testing were what gave scientists the data to first hypothesize tectonic plate movement. I doubt the foreign nuclear test information wasn't classified. Military sharing of information has been going on for 50 years.
That's Obama's budget, actually. Now, to go with your numbers and add them into the above, as you seem to incist,
Lets see, TARP was $700B, which means that the total military spending in that $1.6T would be $900B, which if we add to what is in the above, means that the military budget would be $900B out of $3747.9B, would be a hair over 24%. Still a far cry from the half being claimed. Care to try again?
You mean the amount loaned in the last year? So, China didn't finance anything before 2008?
And let's not forget who loaned Bush / America the money for the foreign policy debacle that was Iraq, as well as the bank bailout after all those 'free market' idiots enabled the bankers to play roulette with our money... China (or are you arguing that China is not a tyranny?)
China holds $739.6B of US debt, which they have acquired over 30 years. The total outstanding debt is over $11,342.7B. Roughly 6.5%. China didn't finance shit.
How about we stop using half our entire government budget to subsidize the military industrial complex.
Where do you get half from?
Social Security: $749.1B
Medicare/Medicaid: $1058.4B
Interest on Public Debt: $454.5B
Military Budget: $743.2B
Other: $585.9B
I get under 21%. How did you get half?
The protests we have in the US every year would seem to contradict your theory. The most recent being the tea parties, then there are the G8 protests, NAFTA protests, the protests at the presidential political conventions... Sorry, but the US has protests all the time.
Well, given that the minimum started a few years ago and the earth has been on a cooling trend for the past few years, ending a period of high solar activity in which we were on a warming trend, it would be quite a coincidence that the warming trend happened to end just when the sun had a drastic decrease in solar activity.
The question now being, will it pass the US crash safety tests, as the GP is talking about. While there may be cars out there under 1 ton, I've not seen many (any?) in the US for that specific reason.
Nope, but it is one of the smaller ones. Basically what the op is saying is that the car "would hardly be dangerous" if we got rid of every other car on the road. It's ridiculous to think that is a valid solution. It's like saying that it would be safe to walk down the middle of road, provided you get rid of all the cars. It's simply not going to happen.
It sounds like you've never leased a car before. Maintenance is paid for by the leasee, not the leaser. So they would not have to pay for the repairs, you would.
Except that steel isn't the only metal that corrodes. Copper does as well, especially in a salt environment. Electric hub motors still wear out, whether the electronics need replacement or due to corrosion or other wear and tear, including the bearings. Just because it has fewer moving pieces, doesn't mean it's going to last 20 years maintenance free.
This vehicle would hardly be dangerous at all if we got rid of the rest of the 1 ton+ passenger vehicles.
Considering that the Toyota Prius weighs in at 2,765lb-3042lb, that would be every other car on the road. Meaning your suggestion would be to replace all cars with this one.
The argument is not that no other company bundles browers with their operating systems
Apple, Redhat. Both bundle browsers with their product.
It's the controller electronics. The tube is nothing more than mercury vapor surounded by phosphorus. The ballast is what wears out. Part of the ballast is a variable resistor that keeps the current traveling through the vapor below a certain critical amount. You see, as the bulbs get hotter (warm up) the resistance goes down, increasing brightness, current and power consumption. If they get to hot, they explode, as has been found.
No, I thought I'd post it showing a contradiction in your claims. A contradiction that still exists. Propane comes from petroleum sources. It is therefore impossible to use propane while avoiding the whole petroleum infrastructure. Whether we produce it all domestically or not. So long as we are using propane, we are still using the petroleum infrastructure.
It's not being clever, it's not being a genius, it's pointing out a direct contradiction in your claims.
The US has a much dirtier diesel than that in Europe. This is why the low sulfur diesel mentioned in that article is such a big deal. You see, the source of crude oil for Diesel that the US uses is different from the one Europe uses and not all crude is the same. The sulfur content in the crude oil the US uses is significantly higher and is a much heavier crude that requires more refining. From what I've read, there isn't another country in the world currently capable of refining Venezuelan crude other than the US.
The higher sulfur content in the crude oil is either passed through the process until the end or needs to be processed out. Generally, to get diesels to meet the restrictions in the US, there has had to be some additional gadgets in the vehicles. Here's one example, urine (I kid you not) is injected into the diesel cylinders along with the fuel and makes the exhaust cleaner. Not much is required, it's generally refilled when the oil is changed.
There is also the limitations on maximum particle size that can be emitted. Diesel engines normally emit much larger particles than gasoline engines. This has been another thing that has made diesels more expensive and harder to develop for the US market over Europe.
Ok, units change. 21/31MPG equates to 11.2/7.5l/km and 30/41MPG equates to 7.8/5.7l/km. The first pair is for gasoline, the 2nd is for diesel.
Oil is used for milling, enrichment and fabrication? Where? It's all done with electricity which can come from (drum role please) NUCLEAR! About the only possible thing you have is the mining for the trucks, which can eventually be replaced with electric or a biofuel. If nothing else, while very ineficient, you can even manufacture diesel from CO2 and H20 given enough spare electricity using the Fischer-Tropsch process. Further, the building of nuclear recycling and breeder reactors would reduce the need for mining even more.
Quit perpetuating the exponential growth myth. Once any country becomes developed, the birthrate drops. The US currently has a birthrate of about 2.1 It was even at 1.75 for a few years around the mid 70s. If it weren't for immigration, the US population would be static or dropping, the same goes for Europe.
Sorry to burst your bubble, but even non-US auto makers do not offer many vehicles with diesel engines in the US. No car made for Europe would pass the Air Quality tests that the US has. Volks Wagon offers three diesels total and the rest of their cars have shitty mileage. Seriously, 21mpg/31mpg on most of their gasoline cars? The diesels get 30/41. (How does that compare to the EU counterparts?
You're pulling out the wrong number. You want "Net Income". Hell, Gross Profit of $20B is about 40 times what their actual earnings is and does not take into account several other factors such as taxes.
A) We haven't built a plant in 30 years. How do you know that it is expensive when you have no data to back it up? Or have you looked at France's and Japan's data for their standardized reactor design?
B) Chernoby was so completely different from any reactor the US has ever implemented (including the lack of a containment dome) it is just pure FUD to even bring it up.
C) Recycling the so called waste will yield a sizeable amount of fuel and the remaining short lived waste could be stored in the mines the uranium ore came out of in the first place.
D) See C combined with: I thought the idea was to get away from coal?
Oh, and to E from the AC: Actually, we have about a few thousand year supply of Uranium in the US alone (Virginia) and that does not include sea water extraction. Breeder reactors also allow the production of more fuel. It is either a renewable or going to last so long that fusion will come about before we run out.
However, having some fuel such as hydrogen (or propane or ethanol or...), allows for quick filling up. Batteries, for the forseable future, can not be charged quickly. Even if someone came up with a reasonably quick method of doing so, the varrying load on the electric grid would cause instability. Charging a 40kwh batter in 5 minutes would take 2.4MW of power, or about 1000 amps at the standard 240V line (in the US) (oven, dryer). They are usually limited to 50 amps at most. Home electric charging isn't practical. Even using a special recharging station, you would still be pulsing the grid in a way likely to crash it.
One proposed solution is to have a local big battery at a station that is 'trickle charged' from the grid and does a massive dump to the vehicles. This still has issues, but something like this is probably what would be required in the long run.
Lithium-ions are already close to 90% efficient, which no method of producing hydrogen can even approach.
Lithiums are about 99% efficient, actually. Also, it's not just the production of hydrogen that is the problem, it is also the turning of it into electricity that sucks as well. The combined cycle is what you would want to look at (I think 25% is about the total cycle efficiency). Oh, and to be fair, the electric transission grid is ~98% efficient, giving batteries a ~97% efficiency times whatever the source efficiency is.
But why more hybrid cars don't use diesel powerplants instead of gasoline, I don't know.
Environmental Air Quality Laws.
You could even fuel these with propane bottles, and so avoid the whole petroleum infrastructure.
You don't know where propane comes from, do you.