Norway is probably the place in the world that has the most electric vehicles per capita.
If it is really cold, you are already plugging your gas fueled car in overnight, without the electric heating it will not start in the morning. A plugged in electric vehicle can be set to preheat the cabin, and if you time the charging so that you put the last few percent in just before leaving, you will be starting with a warm battery.
Best of all, in Sweden and Norway most electricity is hydroelectricity.
Filtering on/22 is not really sustainable these days. People filter at all sorts of boundaries, but you can generally get away with a/24. Those who filter/24's tend to keep a default route to a more lenient provider.
Also I'm an American, does Denmark have the right against self incrimination like we do?
Not only does Denmark have a right against self incrimination, defendants in criminal cases cannot commit perjury and do not have to swear to tell the truth. There is no doubt that he will be given the rights of an accused person.
I believe the article is wrong though, the case against him has been under preparation by the Danish police for a long time. Formal charges cannot be far away.
At some point (basically the point after this proposal) you have to loop around the solar system:)
A loop around the Earth would probably provide a reasonable intermediate upgrade.
Speaking of which, the Large Hadron Collider seems to consist of a straight section, then a magnet, and so on. What are the limitations on moving the magnets closer together? The straight sections must be fairly useless except for making room for the equipment. Or does the magnetic field somehow cover the entire circumference?
You can laugh at the IETF as much as you want, there are lots of things to laugh at. However, there are still a lot of very technical people involved in the IETF, and a large subset of them are finding it unpleasant that the Internet they helped create has become something very different. They are fighting the hard fight right now, and we should all support them when we can.
It is possible that the NSA or other similar dark forces may manage to subvert their intentions once more, but so far it looks like there is still hope for the good guys.
If a RMH is heating a whole house it is because they have managed to insulate the whole house very well. The key then is in the insulation, not in the form of heating.
A well insulated house cannot use a regular wood stove. A regular wood stove puts out heat in the kW range, and that would make the house unbearably hot, after which you would have to let the house cool down uncomfortably until you go back to making it uncomfortably hot.
The problem with (some) wood burners is not that they emit too much CO2. Rather the opposite, they do not emit enough. They emit too much plain C or CO or various interesting carbon-containing molecules other than CO2.
If wood burners always turned those compounds into CO2, no one would have a problem with them. CO2 is odorless and invisible and mostly harmless.
You just need to have solar cells which, when hit by a photon, do a raytrace of where that particular photon would have hit. If it eventually strikes a retina, you re-emit the photon in the appropriate direction. If not, you turn the energy into electricity.
I can only think of a few laws of physics which prevent this from working, so I am off to the patent office. Luckily they do not demand actual prototypes these days.
Note that the strike price for the Hinckley project is guaranteed for 35 years and inflation adjusted. Offshore wind does not get 35 year guarantees. Also, the UK pays what must be the highest prices for offshore wind in the world. No one sane sets a guaranteed inflation adjusted electricity price for 35 years. In ten or twenty years when everyone else has cheap renewable power, the UK industry is stuck with unaffordable energy. Hinckley will be busy producing energy at night in the summer, still charging £95 per MWh for something with a value close to zero.
One km^3 of basalt rock has a mass of 3 Gt or 3Pg. Specific heat capacity is 0.8J/gK, so we get 2.4PJ/K for 1 km^3, or 150PJ for a delta of 60K. Denmark uses 26GW of power on average, so 150PJ is gone in slightly more than 2 months, assuming 100% efficiency. If you wanted to power the entire world (16 TW), you would get less than 3 hours out of one km^3 of rock. Note that the rock replenishes heat at the mW/m2 rate that I mentioned before; practically zero, and therefore geothermal is not sustainable/renewable.
Transferring the power is difficult, as you would have to convert it to electricity, and thermodynamic efficiency is lousy if the temperature delta is low.
If nuclear power plants were cheap, you could extract uranium from sea water and still provide power at competitive prices. Uranium in sea water is an extremely large resource.
Unfortunately nuclear power plants are extremely expensive to build, and so they would be hopelessly uncompetitive if they had to pay the additional costs of extracting fuel from sea water. As it is, even in the UK, on existing nuclear sites (so approximately no problems with NIMBY), new builds require guaranteed prices way above market rates for 35 years. Even solar can compete with that.
Plus the whole "thorium" thing cannot be used for nukes either.
Sure it can. You can fairly trivially produce and separate Uranium 233 if you have a thorium fuel cycle running. It is an unusual choice for nuclear bombs, but perfectly suitable.
No. No there is not. Geothermal flux is measured in mW per m2. Yes there are local exceptions like Iceland, but if you tried to produce sufficient energy for hundreds of millions of people, you would find the hot spots going cool very quickly.
And you assume that every single prisoner has the exact same caloric needs...whether they're a skinny old guy or an 18-year-old who is hitting the weights every chance they get. I find it profoundly impossible for that to be true.
No, I assume the prisoners get to choose the amount, or get sufficient that it is enough for everyone. The latter will obviously mean a lot is wasted.
You do know what a prison IS, don't you? Seriously?
It is a place where people lose their freedom in order to punish and rehabilitate them.
The interceptor missile cannot use maneuverability for much. Ballistic missiles have little to no maneuverability at the time that the interceptor missile strikes them, so all the interceptor missile has to do is figure out where the ballistic missile is going and put itself there. An SR-72 would be able to see the interceptor missile coming and turn out of the way, and the interceptor missile cannot go Mach 6 to follow. The only way to hit an SR-72 would be to simply fire enough missiles and hope the SR-72 blunders into one.
since the cost per btu of fuel is 1/5 that of electric
It is? That is news to me.
Also since most electric is produced from petrolum
No one sane produces electricity from petroleum, except where lousy infrastructure makes it the only viable option (e.g. research stations in Antarctica).
You can run the Tesla Model S on the amount of electricity used to refine the gasoline for an equivalent car. Or put another way: a gasoline car uses as much electricity as pure electric, PLUS the gasoline.
"Chris: It's funny they make that argument, because they're one of the largest users of electricity in the country, to refine gasoline. That's why the power cords go into refineries. Something like 4 to 6 kilowatt hours of electricity to refine every gallon of gasoline. They're pulling that electricity from the same source as they're critiquing on electric cars and they get much less result out of it.
Elon: Exactly. Chris has a nice way of saying it which is, you have enough electricity to power all the cars in the country if you stop refining gasoline. You take an average of 5 kilowatt hours to refine gasoline, something like the Model S can go 20 miles on 5 kilowatt hours. You basically have the energy needed to power electric vehicles if you stop refining.
BI: 5 kilowatt hours, that's to refine and transport one gallon of gas?
Elon: Chris, does that include transportation?
Chris: I think it's just refining. It does not include transporting it from the Middle East or Venezuela. The more efficient your refinery is, the lower that number is. The lowest number in the DOE study I read was 4, and the highest was 7, it depends on what your refinery is."
Much simpler. Much more dangerous. I will vote to not allow you to do that on roads that I share with you. Since we probably do not live in the same country, that will not be a problem for you.
Few wild animals are capable of slowing a car faster than what brakes can do. It is typically not the deceleration itself which kills or injures when animals are hit, it is the deformation of the car or the car going off the road. In the vast majority of cases, a car with perfect reactions following behind with even a few meters distance should be able to safely stop.
There may be exceptions if you strike a male moose or an elephant or something else with a weight beyond 500kg. It should be relatively easy to add extra distance when traveling on roads where those are a concern.
Large pieces of debris are a concern, but it is the job of the lead car to avoid those. The lead car has to drive slowly enough that it will never strike stationary objects.
In that case, the car following yours needs to have enough space to apply some breaking.
You only have to brake as well as the car you were following if you apply the brakes simultaneously. Simply reacting to LED brake lights should get the reaction time of an automated system well below 1 ms.
Yes, that means that if a meteor falls from the sky, more than one car will hit it, because the first car will be slowed down by the impact way faster than the brakes could do otherwise. However, the only cars that will get involved in the accident are the cars which would have hit the object anyway, if the road ahead of them had been clear of traffic.
Slashdot Mirror
Norway is probably the place in the world that has the most electric vehicles per capita.
If it is really cold, you are already plugging your gas fueled car in overnight, without the electric heating it will not start in the morning. A plugged in electric vehicle can be set to preheat the cabin, and if you time the charging so that you put the last few percent in just before leaving, you will be starting with a warm battery.
Best of all, in Sweden and Norway most electricity is hydroelectricity.
Filtering on /22 is not really sustainable these days. People filter at all sorts of boundaries, but you can generally get away with a /24. Those who filter /24's tend to keep a default route to a more lenient provider.
Also I'm an American, does Denmark have the right against self incrimination like we do?
Not only does Denmark have a right against self incrimination, defendants in criminal cases cannot commit perjury and do not have to swear to tell the truth. There is no doubt that he will be given the rights of an accused person.
I believe the article is wrong though, the case against him has been under preparation by the Danish police for a long time. Formal charges cannot be far away.
At some point (basically the point after this proposal) you have to loop around the solar system :)
A loop around the Earth would probably provide a reasonable intermediate upgrade.
Speaking of which, the Large Hadron Collider seems to consist of a straight section, then a magnet, and so on. What are the limitations on moving the magnets closer together? The straight sections must be fairly useless except for making room for the equipment. Or does the magnetic field somehow cover the entire circumference?
You can laugh at the IETF as much as you want, there are lots of things to laugh at. However, there are still a lot of very technical people involved in the IETF, and a large subset of them are finding it unpleasant that the Internet they helped create has become something very different. They are fighting the hard fight right now, and we should all support them when we can.
It is possible that the NSA or other similar dark forces may manage to subvert their intentions once more, but so far it looks like there is still hope for the good guys.
Or I may be hopelessly naive.
Do you not believe in it, or are you, as you stated, just skeptical? That would make you an agnostic.
Do you believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster? Are you just skeptical about it? Are you a-flyingspaghettimonster-ist or just agnostic?
If a RMH is heating a whole house it is because they have managed to insulate the whole house very well. The key then is in the insulation, not in the form of heating.
A well insulated house cannot use a regular wood stove. A regular wood stove puts out heat in the kW range, and that would make the house unbearably hot, after which you would have to let the house cool down uncomfortably until you go back to making it uncomfortably hot.
I wish I lived in a well insulated house.
The problem with (some) wood burners is not that they emit too much CO2. Rather the opposite, they do not emit enough. They emit too much plain C or CO or various interesting carbon-containing molecules other than CO2.
If wood burners always turned those compounds into CO2, no one would have a problem with them. CO2 is odorless and invisible and mostly harmless.
You just need to have solar cells which, when hit by a photon, do a raytrace of where that particular photon would have hit. If it eventually strikes a retina, you re-emit the photon in the appropriate direction. If not, you turn the energy into electricity.
I can only think of a few laws of physics which prevent this from working, so I am off to the patent office. Luckily they do not demand actual prototypes these days.
Note that the strike price for the Hinckley project is guaranteed for 35 years and inflation adjusted. Offshore wind does not get 35 year guarantees. Also, the UK pays what must be the highest prices for offshore wind in the world. No one sane sets a guaranteed inflation adjusted electricity price for 35 years. In ten or twenty years when everyone else has cheap renewable power, the UK industry is stuck with unaffordable energy. Hinckley will be busy producing energy at night in the summer, still charging £95 per MWh for something with a value close to zero.
One km^3 of basalt rock has a mass of 3 Gt or 3Pg. Specific heat capacity is 0.8J/gK, so we get 2.4PJ/K for 1 km^3, or 150PJ for a delta of 60K. Denmark uses 26GW of power on average, so 150PJ is gone in slightly more than 2 months, assuming 100% efficiency. If you wanted to power the entire world (16 TW), you would get less than 3 hours out of one km^3 of rock. Note that the rock replenishes heat at the mW/m2 rate that I mentioned before; practically zero, and therefore geothermal is not sustainable/renewable.
Transferring the power is difficult, as you would have to convert it to electricity, and thermodynamic efficiency is lousy if the temperature delta is low.
Well, the US built some and tested them. I doubt they had an unmanned fuel-processing factory at the time.
If nuclear power plants were cheap, you could extract uranium from sea water and still provide power at competitive prices. Uranium in sea water is an extremely large resource.
Unfortunately nuclear power plants are extremely expensive to build, and so they would be hopelessly uncompetitive if they had to pay the additional costs of extracting fuel from sea water. As it is, even in the UK, on existing nuclear sites (so approximately no problems with NIMBY), new builds require guaranteed prices way above market rates for 35 years. Even solar can compete with that.
Plus the whole "thorium" thing cannot be used for nukes either.
Sure it can. You can fairly trivially produce and separate Uranium 233 if you have a thorium fuel cycle running. It is an unusual choice for nuclear bombs, but perfectly suitable.
Geothermal ? Theres plenty of energy there...
No. No there is not. Geothermal flux is measured in mW per m2. Yes there are local exceptions like Iceland, but if you tried to produce sufficient energy for hundreds of millions of people, you would find the hot spots going cool very quickly.
And you assume that every single prisoner has the exact same caloric needs...whether they're a skinny old guy or an 18-year-old who is hitting the weights every chance they get. I find it profoundly impossible for that to be true.
No, I assume the prisoners get to choose the amount, or get sufficient that it is enough for everyone. The latter will obviously mean a lot is wasted.
You do know what a prison IS, don't you? Seriously?
It is a place where people lose their freedom in order to punish and rehabilitate them.
Yes it is a real question.
You may pass on eating a meal, instead giving it to the other guy in exchange for the thing you want.
If the other guy has sufficient food available, he will not want your meal. Prisoners going hungry seems cruel to me.
How can food in prison be a commodity? Are the prisoners not fed enough?
Aircraft development is getting so expensive that it cannot be hidden anymore.
The interceptor missile cannot use maneuverability for much. Ballistic missiles have little to no maneuverability at the time that the interceptor missile strikes them, so all the interceptor missile has to do is figure out where the ballistic missile is going and put itself there. An SR-72 would be able to see the interceptor missile coming and turn out of the way, and the interceptor missile cannot go Mach 6 to follow. The only way to hit an SR-72 would be to simply fire enough missiles and hope the SR-72 blunders into one.
since the cost per btu of fuel is 1/5 that of electric
It is? That is news to me.
Also since most electric is produced from petrolum
No one sane produces electricity from petroleum, except where lousy infrastructure makes it the only viable option (e.g. research stations in Antarctica).
You can run the Tesla Model S on the amount of electricity used to refine the gasoline for an equivalent car. Or put another way: a gasoline car uses as much electricity as pure electric, PLUS the gasoline.
"Chris: It's funny they make that argument, because they're one of the largest users of electricity in the country, to refine gasoline. That's why the power cords go into refineries. Something like 4 to 6 kilowatt hours of electricity to refine every gallon of gasoline. They're pulling that electricity from the same source as they're critiquing on electric cars and they get much less result out of it.
Elon: Exactly. Chris has a nice way of saying it which is, you have enough electricity to power all the cars in the country if you stop refining gasoline. You take an average of 5 kilowatt hours to refine gasoline, something like the Model S can go 20 miles on 5 kilowatt hours. You basically have the energy needed to power electric vehicles if you stop refining.
BI: 5 kilowatt hours, that's to refine and transport one gallon of gas?
Elon: Chris, does that include transportation?
Chris: I think it's just refining. It does not include transporting it from the Middle East or Venezuela. The more efficient your refinery is, the lower that number is. The lowest number in the DOE study I read was 4, and the highest was 7, it depends on what your refinery is."
Source: http://www.businessinsider.com/elon-musk-and-chris-paine-explain-how-the-electric-car-got-its-revenge-2011-10
Enough. It's my car. I drive it. Much simpler.
Much simpler. Much more dangerous. I will vote to not allow you to do that on roads that I share with you. Since we probably do not live in the same country, that will not be a problem for you.
Few wild animals are capable of slowing a car faster than what brakes can do. It is typically not the deceleration itself which kills or injures when animals are hit, it is the deformation of the car or the car going off the road. In the vast majority of cases, a car with perfect reactions following behind with even a few meters distance should be able to safely stop.
There may be exceptions if you strike a male moose or an elephant or something else with a weight beyond 500kg. It should be relatively easy to add extra distance when traveling on roads where those are a concern.
Large pieces of debris are a concern, but it is the job of the lead car to avoid those. The lead car has to drive slowly enough that it will never strike stationary objects.
In that case, the car following yours needs to have enough space to apply some breaking.
You only have to brake as well as the car you were following if you apply the brakes simultaneously. Simply reacting to LED brake lights should get the reaction time of an automated system well below 1 ms.
Yes, that means that if a meteor falls from the sky, more than one car will hit it, because the first car will be slowed down by the impact way faster than the brakes could do otherwise. However, the only cars that will get involved in the accident are the cars which would have hit the object anyway, if the road ahead of them had been clear of traffic.