Shouldn't be a problem nowadays. With a sufficiently old car the CO will kill you, but it's unlikely that you have a car without a catalytic converter.
Well, a good start would be stopping tax evasion in third world countries by international companies. It is estimated that just that one thing would contribute more money to third world countries than foreign aid does.
True, you need the power plants fairly close to the consumers, which can be a problem. Especially in England with plenty of rivers for cooling, so the power plants haven't been forced to be placed where people live.
Is pumping boiling water through pipes the most efficient way to heat houses? Isn't there a pretty massive heat loss in the pipes?
I think it's obvious that the original poster meant remote heating. The original article is about remote heating. I was certainly talking about remote heating.
You're the only one who is talking about how to get heat transported around inside the house.
England is stuck with a lot of antiquated systems where electricity is turned into heat without a heat pump. You pretty much can't do worse than that, thermodynamically.
It's fairly common in Northern Europe (excepting England, for some reason). Losses aren't very high because the pipes are insulated. In modern systems the water isn't boiling, but it will take a long time before everything has been converted to lower temperature systems.
You can get extremely efficient by using low-temperature (30C or lower) remote heating plus a heat pump, but that means a large investment per house or apartment block.
Start with outdoor lighting. Outdoor lights, by their very nature, must be sealed. CFLs contain lots of electronic components, including electrolytic capacitors. In a sealed enclosure, these parts can heat up beyond the thermal limits of their components within minutes. Therefore, for outdoor use, you should not use CFLs, period.
Don't be ridiculous. Most street lights aren't incandescents. Most streets are outdoor.
I'm pretty fed up with the same tired B.S. arguments being trotted out by manufacturers to try to convince people to buy CFLs and LED lights.
You can polute all you want as long as you pay for it.
What else do you propose? If you're saying that the wealthy can't pollute more than the poor, you've just eliminated the primary distinction between the rich and the poor. Good luck with that.
Kyoto is all about carbon credits and trading and forests because the European Union believed it was the only way to get the US on board. A traditional EU treaty would simply have given each country targets for CO2 emissions without allowing carbon credit trade or counting trees. Then as evaluations came in, most of the countries wouldn't have met the goal entirely but would have come some way towards it, and they would have all the excuses about helping the third world and reforestation and stuff, and they would have had a stern warning to do better next time. Then new goals would have been set and so on. That would have been closer to command economy, and it likely would have worked (at least in so far that "worked" means that year-over-year emissions would be on a steady decline).
Instead Kyoto became a big sham where you can get carbon credits for building coal-fired brick factories in Bangladesh.
Read the link. 5 pages of errata, and that's just headlines. Modern processors are very complicated, and they will have bugs.
The major difference between Intel and AMD when it comes to errata is that Intel learned its lesson about secrecy from the Pentium FPU fiasco. Since then they have had a very open approach to processor bugs. AMD hasn't had such a PR disaster and isn't quite as open. That doesn't mean they are particularly less buggy.
Funny how similar the free Unices are
on
FreeBSD 8.0 Released
·
· Score: 1, Insightful
Most of this could be from a Linux distribution list of new features... Slightly ahead in some ways, slightly behind in others.
You're still arguing that China is the problem, when the US emits just as much and is just 1/3 the population.
Yes, if we're to combat global warming, China needs to help too. But the excuse that they have to cut emissions first is ridiculous, when we have been emitting CO2 for 150 years.
Either way it doesn't matter. Emissions aren't going to get cut, except for the limits imposed by the difficulties of fossil fuel extraction.
You're not really this stupid are you? You could say "Chinese people aren't polluting" reasonably, but there's more pollution coming out of China now than out of the USA.
And there's more pollution coming out of North America than of China. Why are national borders significant? Splitting China is 10 doesn't change the emissions.
Iran is not trying for Nuclear Energy. They are working on Nuclear bombs. BIG difference.
How do you know? So far there is no proof that they have created weapons-grade uranium. Obviously a uranium refinement plant can create it, but you need a refinement plant for nuclear power too, so that is neither here nor there.
If an African nation is permitted emission levels of ~zero (because they aren't emitting anything right now) while a Western nation is permitted to emit say 20% less than what they emitted in 1990, which one will win in the global economy? If the rich Western countries can't afford to use green technology, how can a poor African nation afford them?
Africa doesn't get to industrialize while polluting like mad bastards would be much better. Ditto for China.
China isn't polluting, compared to Europe or USA. Its per capita emissions are 1/4 of those of the US. When the US has cut its emissions in half it can start talks with the rest of the world.
You are saying that no nation is allowed to raise its CO2-emissions. I am saying that will mean no industrialization in Africa.
I'd prefer them to go for alternative energy, but it's certainly ridiculous for us to tell them that they have to make EVERYTHING without fossil fuels, whereas the Western world is allowed to continue polluting. As for nuclear: Look how happy the rest of the world is when Iran tries for nuclear energy.
Are you saying that a significant fraction of the Sun's energy output is at EUV or X-ray wavelengths?
Yes I am.
This is simply not something that can be kept secret or which isn't studied. Can you provide a link to such a study? The images don't say anything about the Sun's energy output at various wavelengths.
Are you saying that a significant fraction of the Sun's energy output is at EUV or X-ray wavelengths? If so, you'll need to provide some evidence for that. Stars have so far been pretty well modelled as black body radiators, and a black body radiator at just 6000K isn't going to have X-rays as its primary radiation.
Slashdot Mirror
Shouldn't be a problem nowadays. With a sufficiently old car the CO will kill you, but it's unlikely that you have a car without a catalytic converter.
Well, a good start would be stopping tax evasion in third world countries by international companies. It is estimated that just that one thing would contribute more money to third world countries than foreign aid does.
True, you need the power plants fairly close to the consumers, which can be a problem. Especially in England with plenty of rivers for cooling, so the power plants haven't been forced to be placed where people live.
Ok, from the original post:
Is pumping boiling water through pipes the most efficient way to heat houses? Isn't there a pretty massive heat loss in the pipes?
I think it's obvious that the original poster meant remote heating. The original article is about remote heating. I was certainly talking about remote heating.
You're the only one who is talking about how to get heat transported around inside the house.
England is stuck with a lot of antiquated systems where electricity is turned into heat without a heat pump. You pretty much can't do worse than that, thermodynamically.
but I'd point out that virtually all non-residential heating loops don't actually carry water they carry steam
Not around here (Denmark) they don't. Steam used to be popular, but it's a waste of energy which could be used to make electricity.
But as I said, not everything has been converted yet.
It's fairly common in Northern Europe (excepting England, for some reason). Losses aren't very high because the pipes are insulated. In modern systems the water isn't boiling, but it will take a long time before everything has been converted to lower temperature systems.
You can get extremely efficient by using low-temperature (30C or lower) remote heating plus a heat pump, but that means a large investment per house or apartment block.
Start with outdoor lighting. Outdoor lights, by their very nature, must be sealed. CFLs contain lots of electronic components, including electrolytic capacitors. In a sealed enclosure, these parts can heat up beyond the thermal limits of their components within minutes. Therefore, for outdoor use, you should not use CFLs, period.
Don't be ridiculous. Most street lights aren't incandescents. Most streets are outdoor.
I'm pretty fed up with the same tired B.S. arguments being trotted out by manufacturers to try to convince people to buy CFLs and LED lights.
I think it's clear where the B.S. is.
In Denmark, the IT union is one of the stronger ones.
You can polute all you want as long as you pay for it.
What else do you propose? If you're saying that the wealthy can't pollute more than the poor, you've just eliminated the primary distinction between the rich and the poor. Good luck with that.
Kyoto is all about carbon credits and trading and forests because the European Union believed it was the only way to get the US on board. A traditional EU treaty would simply have given each country targets for CO2 emissions without allowing carbon credit trade or counting trees. Then as evaluations came in, most of the countries wouldn't have met the goal entirely but would have come some way towards it, and they would have all the excuses about helping the third world and reforestation and stuff, and they would have had a stern warning to do better next time. Then new goals would have been set and so on. That would have been closer to command economy, and it likely would have worked (at least in so far that "worked" means that year-over-year emissions would be on a steady decline).
Instead Kyoto became a big sham where you can get carbon credits for building coal-fired brick factories in Bangladesh.
And lame as our cars may be, they are far more efficient than they were in 1980.
Not really, the average car was smaller and lighter. It's only the last 3 or 4 years that average mileage has started improving.
Interesting theory, but where does this energy go ? Is it converted to sound, heat, mass, or some other form ?
Heat.
And if we could completely "sap all the energy" away from the beam, wouldn't this imply we could create 100% effecient solar cells ?
As long as you're happy with heat as output, 100% efficient solar cells are quite trivial.
Read the link. 5 pages of errata, and that's just headlines. Modern processors are very complicated, and they will have bugs.
The major difference between Intel and AMD when it comes to errata is that Intel learned its lesson about secrecy from the Pentium FPU fiasco. Since then they have had a very open approach to processor bugs. AMD hasn't had such a PR disaster and isn't quite as open. That doesn't mean they are particularly less buggy.
Most of this could be from a Linux distribution list of new features... Slightly ahead in some ways, slightly behind in others.
So because we live longer happier wealthier lives, we are permitted to emit more CO2?
We have definitely reached the "battle of wits against an unarmed opponent" stage here.
You're still arguing that China is the problem, when the US emits just as much and is just 1/3 the population.
Yes, if we're to combat global warming, China needs to help too. But the excuse that they have to cut emissions first is ridiculous, when we have been emitting CO2 for 150 years.
Either way it doesn't matter. Emissions aren't going to get cut, except for the limits imposed by the difficulties of fossil fuel extraction.
Likewise, you need to quit emitting so much.
Absolutely, and it will happen.
Germany is still a VERY large polluter in the world.
True. I don't live in Germany.
So, why do you not quit living like you do, and give it to CHina?
That is exactly what we will have to do.
You're not really this stupid are you? You could say "Chinese people aren't polluting" reasonably, but there's more pollution coming out of China now than out of the USA.
And there's more pollution coming out of North America than of China. Why are national borders significant? Splitting China is 10 doesn't change the emissions.
Iran is not trying for Nuclear Energy. They are working on Nuclear bombs. BIG difference.
How do you know? So far there is no proof that they have created weapons-grade uranium. Obviously a uranium refinement plant can create it, but you need a refinement plant for nuclear power too, so that is neither here nor there.
If an African nation is permitted emission levels of ~zero (because they aren't emitting anything right now) while a Western nation is permitted to emit say 20% less than what they emitted in 1990, which one will win in the global economy? If the rich Western countries can't afford to use green technology, how can a poor African nation afford them?
Africa doesn't get to industrialize while polluting like mad bastards would be much better. Ditto for China.
China isn't polluting, compared to Europe or USA. Its per capita emissions are 1/4 of those of the US. When the US has cut its emissions in half it can start talks with the rest of the world.
You are saying that no nation is allowed to raise its CO2-emissions. I am saying that will mean no industrialization in Africa.
I'd prefer them to go for alternative energy, but it's certainly ridiculous for us to tell them that they have to make EVERYTHING without fossil fuels, whereas the Western world is allowed to continue polluting. As for nuclear: Look how happy the rest of the world is when Iran tries for nuclear energy.
Are you saying that a significant fraction of the Sun's energy output is at EUV or X-ray wavelengths?
Yes I am.
This is simply not something that can be kept secret or which isn't studied. Can you provide a link to such a study? The images don't say anything about the Sun's energy output at various wavelengths.
So Africa doesn't get to industrialize, because the Western world polluted too much before they got their chance? Right.
Are you saying that a significant fraction of the Sun's energy output is at EUV or X-ray wavelengths? If so, you'll need to provide some evidence for that. Stars have so far been pretty well modelled as black body radiators, and a black body radiator at just 6000K isn't going to have X-rays as its primary radiation.
What happened between 1940 and 1980? The great dimming happened, that's what.