You want to know why Carter is believed to be the worst president? Start with Carters economic policies that caused 17% annual inflation, go from there.
Because Bad Things happen when a country is no longer self sufficient food wise? Eventually, something happens and you have starvation and hunger. Right now, the US is a net food exporter and it would like to stay that way.
The evolution of vehicles is going in the electric power direction. I believe it's possible to build an electric generator that will run off of ethanol or diesel. So, once can use either fuel in an electric car.
Hey, it's not our fault you don't live in a State. Move to one if it means that much to you. Also, it's going to take a constitutional amendment to give DC a vote in the House and Senate.
2) It will force people to realize that such fraud is possible, and force a solution to be created before the next US Federal Election. The US has had election fraud for well over 80 years. We know it is possible, we know it happens and we are pretty sure it has changed the outcome in a few elections. What makes you think there is a solution?
The linked entry (part of Bruce Sterling's blog) quotes a story about British anti-camera groups, one of which claims its up-and-coming methods "will enable them to destroy a roadside camera in just a few seconds,"
In the US, we call this a thirty-aught-six, among other things. Perhaps these Brits are borrowing something from Russia? Molotov Cocktails would be ironically appropriate.
Conversely, I gather indirect taxation works better, as it is a guaranteed tax on consumption. You can't avoid buying food, etc in the same way that you can avoid "earning" money or whatever.
Wanna bet? People on welfare use roads and most other services everyone else does. Yet they pay no income tax and cost the system more than they put in. After all, why should they work and pay taxes when the state is perfectly willing to feed clothe and shelter them? In Maryland, the only thing you need to do to get a house paid for by the state is be on a waiting list till you get to the top and then the state pays all your rent checks for you.
I too live in an all electric house, but it uses a heat pump. Now, you do not use 5.7kw in a day. You might use 5.7kw instantaneously, but not in a day. The 4kw I gave was a peak instantaneous power consumption. I believe the average for the house I am in is about 40 kwH per day. Still less than the original numbers given.
Are you sure about that 5.7kwH per day? That seems a tad low, given the average for the country is closer to 24kwH/day.
200WH per mile is impossible in urban start stop traffic even with regen braking.
Given that this is the expected range of the Chevy Volt, I expect this is possible. Or do you have a source to back this up? Further, Start and stop traffic would rarely get you above 20mph, keeping air resistance fairly low. I see 200WH/mile as relatively easy then.
In reality, energy is wasted outside the car, in the delivery system.
The delivery system is well over 90% efficient. LiON batteries are close to 99% efficient when charging. Again, this leaves a mere 1kw consumption by the car and the delivery system for the bulb will have the same proportional losses.
My gut feeling is still that the mass of vehicles and the infrastructure to support charging them will certainly consume more power overall than what is saved from tungsten replacement by CFLs.
The replacement by CFLs is irrelevant. The cars will be charged at night when the bulbs are off anyways. Right now, I'm in a house with 8 lights (four fixtures), a computer and a radio on. During normal power consumption in the USA, power consumption is double at noon compared to midnight. The infrastructure is not going to be that much more, especially as there will be no overnight conversion of every car to electric.
And using 1KWH of power in 6 minutes is far more than a house consumes in electric lighting in a day.
You must not spend a lot of time away at night or in rooms without windows. Just showering (teeth, etc) in the morning, I turn on 4 lights in the fixture for at least 20 minutes. That's 100wh right there. Then there's the time I spend awake at night. Household easily use 1kwh in lighting each day.
Why are you just looking at lighting? Include ovens, microwaves, washers, heaters, computers, radios and so on. You're saying we don't have the infrastructure in place to do this. I'm saying we already do, even if you never change incandescents to CFL. Oh side note, CFLs are roughly 5 times as efficient as incandescents. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luminous_efficacy#Lighting_efficiency
A typical, all-electric house (no nat gas, LP or oil) is going to have a minimum of one 200A-240V panel, and will likely have two (50- or 100kW total).
You're math is wrong. Very wrong. No one uses 100kW, except maybe Al Gore. The main breaker to a house is typically 200 AMP and 120V, peaking household usage at 24kW. But no one ever maxes out their house. Average power consumption over a month for my parents house is 2kW. So, say it peaks during the day and that's 4kW. More than an order of magnitude less than your 100kW.
An electric car can go 1 mile on 0.2kwh. So, lets assumes everyone is 40 miles (round trip) form work, that's an extra 8kwh they'd suck from the grid every night, when electric usage is at it's lowest. Assume an 8 hour charging time. That comes to 1kwh/h. Now, let see, I'm pretty sure that the average household uses at least 1kwh/h during the day more than they do at night when everyone is asleep. I don't see a problem here.
Probably around the time that you add an extra couple of 100 square metres onto the sun-facing side of your roof so that there's enough surface area to absorb a worthwile amount of energy, or not until they improve the efficiency side of things.
From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_cell "...a solar cell of 12% efficiency with a 100 cm2 (0.01 m2) surface area can be expected to produce approximately 1.2 watts of power."
Average household consumption is about 2kwh per hour. So, lets so you need 4kwh of solar cells to produce this. So, to make the math easier, lets say 1.0 watts per 0.01m2, thats 4,000*0.01m2, or 40m2. No, that's roughly 430ft2. I'm pretty sure most roofs are about that large. You won't be able to get all you power from the cells, but that's what your grid connection is for (and for selling back the excess power)
I never said money had nothing to do with it. I said we aren't dealing with a business but that we are dealing with a government. The OP said that the government was putting a business before safety. What's going on is the Government is putting their own self before safety if anything actually ends up happening.
Did you even read the article? The isotopes this reactor produces are for medical purposes. FTA Doctors around the world depend on the nuclear material for life-saving diagnostic scans, and imaging for fractures, cancers and heart conditions.
Further, the reactor is owned by Canada, the country. It is not an independent business. Everything you've just said is complete anti-business bullshit.
Slashdot Mirror
You want to know why Carter is believed to be the worst president? Start with Carters economic policies that caused 17% annual inflation, go from there.
Because Bad Things happen when a country is no longer self sufficient food wise? Eventually, something happens and you have starvation and hunger. Right now, the US is a net food exporter and it would like to stay that way.
The evolution of vehicles is going in the electric power direction. I believe it's possible to build an electric generator that will run off of ethanol or diesel. So, once can use either fuel in an electric car.
Correction, the article says:
To really maximize their yield potential, you need to provide nitrogen fertilization,"
Now, if I remember right, one can plant legumes and they will perform nitrogen fixation to resupply the soil.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nitrogen_fixation
So, crop rotation?
How about cutting California into two states? That seems like it would solve a few problems.
No, that's the one person you want to be.
Hey, it's not our fault you don't live in a State. Move to one if it means that much to you. Also, it's going to take a constitutional amendment to give DC a vote in the House and Senate.
Because representatives are supposed to represent their individual districts, not the entire state. They are not senators.
I was thinking along similar lines. But an 89 still costs over $100. How do they plan to make a computer for less than a calculator costs?
I just read that book last week and thought the same thing. I don't think you have a problem.
In Chicago, it has been documented that dead people have voted, sometimes twice in the same election. Some convictions listed in this article.
In Texas, it has been documented that non-US citizens have voted.
Given that a whole bunch of European posters are saying their phones were locked when they bought them, where have you been?
Seconded. How is gambling commerce? What is being traded?
So the loss of a job is due to not being able to drive and the loss of the house is due to the lack of a job.
In the US, we call this a thirty-aught-six, among other things. Perhaps these Brits are borrowing something from Russia? Molotov Cocktails would be ironically appropriate.
Conversely, I gather indirect taxation works better, as it is a guaranteed tax on consumption. You can't avoid buying food, etc in the same way that you can avoid "earning" money or whatever.
Wanna bet? People on welfare use roads and most other services everyone else does. Yet they pay no income tax and cost the system more than they put in. After all, why should they work and pay taxes when the state is perfectly willing to feed clothe and shelter them? In Maryland, the only thing you need to do to get a house paid for by the state is be on a waiting list till you get to the top and then the state pays all your rent checks for you.
Caught four times and you lose your driving license, and quite possibly your job and your house.
Can you explain this?
I too live in an all electric house, but it uses a heat pump. Now, you do not use 5.7kw in a day. You might use 5.7kw instantaneously, but not in a day. The 4kw I gave was a peak instantaneous power consumption. I believe the average for the house I am in is about 40 kwH per day. Still less than the original numbers given.
Are you sure about that 5.7kwH per day? That seems a tad low, given the average for the country is closer to 24kwH/day.
200WH per mile is impossible in urban start stop traffic even with regen braking.
Given that this is the expected range of the Chevy Volt, I expect this is possible. Or do you have a source to back this up? Further, Start and stop traffic would rarely get you above 20mph, keeping air resistance fairly low. I see 200WH/mile as relatively easy then.
In reality, energy is wasted outside the car, in the delivery system.
The delivery system is well over 90% efficient. LiON batteries are close to 99% efficient when charging. Again, this leaves a mere 1kw consumption by the car and the delivery system for the bulb will have the same proportional losses.
My gut feeling is still that the mass of vehicles and the infrastructure to support charging them will certainly consume more power overall than what is saved from tungsten replacement by CFLs.
The replacement by CFLs is irrelevant. The cars will be charged at night when the bulbs are off anyways. Right now, I'm in a house with 8 lights (four fixtures), a computer and a radio on. During normal power consumption in the USA, power consumption is double at noon compared to midnight. The infrastructure is not going to be that much more, especially as there will be no overnight conversion of every car to electric.
And using 1KWH of power in 6 minutes is far more than a house consumes in electric lighting in a day.
You must not spend a lot of time away at night or in rooms without windows. Just showering (teeth, etc) in the morning, I turn on 4 lights in the fixture for at least 20 minutes. That's 100wh right there. Then there's the time I spend awake at night. Household easily use 1kwh in lighting each day.
Why are you just looking at lighting? Include ovens, microwaves, washers, heaters, computers, radios and so on. You're saying we don't have the infrastructure in place to do this. I'm saying we already do, even if you never change incandescents to CFL. Oh side note, CFLs are roughly 5 times as efficient as incandescents. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luminous_efficacy#Lighting_efficiency
A typical, all-electric house (no nat gas, LP or oil) is going to have a minimum of one 200A-240V panel, and will likely have two (50- or 100kW total).
You're math is wrong. Very wrong. No one uses 100kW, except maybe Al Gore. The main breaker to a house is typically 200 AMP and 120V, peaking household usage at 24kW. But no one ever maxes out their house. Average power consumption over a month for my parents house is 2kW. So, say it peaks during the day and that's 4kW. More than an order of magnitude less than your 100kW.
An electric car can go 1 mile on 0.2kwh. So, lets assumes everyone is 40 miles (round trip) form work, that's an extra 8kwh they'd suck from the grid every night, when electric usage is at it's lowest. Assume an 8 hour charging time. That comes to 1kwh/h. Now, let see, I'm pretty sure that the average household uses at least 1kwh/h during the day more than they do at night when everyone is asleep. I don't see a problem here.
From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_cell "...a solar cell of 12% efficiency with a 100 cm2 (0.01 m2) surface area can be expected to produce approximately 1.2 watts of power."
Average household consumption is about 2kwh per hour. So, lets so you need 4kwh of solar cells to produce this. So, to make the math easier, lets say 1.0 watts per 0.01m2, thats 4,000*0.01m2, or 40m2. No, that's roughly 430ft2. I'm pretty sure most roofs are about that large. You won't be able to get all you power from the cells, but that's what your grid connection is for (and for selling back the excess power)
I never said money had nothing to do with it. I said we aren't dealing with a business but that we are dealing with a government. The OP said that the government was putting a business before safety. What's going on is the Government is putting their own self before safety if anything actually ends up happening.
Did you even read the article? The isotopes this reactor produces are for medical purposes.
FTA
Doctors around the world depend on the nuclear material for life-saving diagnostic scans, and imaging for fractures, cancers and heart conditions.
Further, the reactor is owned by Canada, the country. It is not an independent business. Everything you've just said is complete anti-business bullshit.