Depends on who your trying to get to recognize the record.
FAI requires you to cross all lines of longitude, and cover a distance equal to the tropic of Cancer.
With that I could do it with snowmobile at the North Pole so long as I had a large enough tanker to fuel me up.
Which is why many put in the Cross the equator twice business. Makes it a more realistic circumnavigation.
Baloonists are the ones that screwed up the equator requirements because they couldn't fly a baloon down and cross the equator due to the prevailing winds, others took advantage of that, your helicopter guys in point.
I always wanted to do a circumnavigation using a Hummer or Land Rover or such (with them footing the bill) by driving north and down into Siberia, and then across Europe, then find a land bridge into Africa. So could do an equator crossing in South America, and in Africa. Then head bact to North America through Scandinavia.
Land Rovver did it, they used ferries though, I think that's cheating.
hmmmmm Looks like someone else is doing it for charity. http://www.drivearoundtheworld.com/route/index.htm l
You assume any change from what we have now will destroy mankind. What if rather than a 500 Billion helmet, we could solve any issues with 200 Billion in re-location funds, or some such.
However, there is plenty of evidence that a slightly warmer world will be beneficial to mankind (It's happened before and mankind as well as flora and fauna did great).
As to O3 and UV, there is little evidence that shows real danger, and even if it does happen, extra radiation also gives us greater genetic diversity, and the other negative effects are bad, but easily coped with.
In otherwords, if you really want a better life, stop worrying about imaginary boogeymen. If you stop listening to the guy on the crate shouting "THE END IS NEAR" he'll eventually go away and maybe you both can enjoy life a little.
Of course it is, as our most building projects, though the big dig is the extreme.
CN Tower, 57 Million dollars, assuming linear costs, that still put the tower itself at over 1/2 their lowball budget. And while the CN tower doesn't cost as much as high rise office tower, a 1 kilometer tall tower (and the support structures required) costs more than a simple do nothing but look nice tower. The CN tower doesn't have any turbines in it, how many turbines were they proposing (small ones are about 1/3 of a million)
"It'll be more like warehouse or greenhouse space, and those are relatively cheap per square foot or acre."
Hey, you're right, greenhouses are cheap per sq, foot.
No the arguement that turbines are much more efficient today than the were almost 1/2 a century ago. POwer plants also werent of the 200 Megawatt size in the 50's, Most convential plants were about 10Mw in size. Nuclear plants scale well, they built it at 60Mw because that was way bigger than they ever expected anyone would need, in a day when peoples power consumption was a fraction of what it is today.
"You're only trying to make it complicated "
No, a question was asked, I answered it, making sure I included the date as well, for comparison. I didn't get into the real world costs from then to today because it would take a team of econmists years of arguing to come up with a wrong answer.
"That's an insane thing to do"
Yeah? I work in capital construction business, incluiding sideline involvement in the big dig. To give a comparison, Taipei 101 cost 1.7 Billion dollars, it's only half the height of that tower, and that cost doesn't inclde the cost of building a roof over a city the size of Naples Florida.
To give a real world approximation, it's the equivalent of putting a roof over the majority of Boston and it surrounding neighborhoods, then building a 1 kilometer tower in the center of it.
A tower twice as tall as the largest building in the world, with a big generator at the top.
But if you factor in the turbine efficiency of 1957 to today it doesn't hold up.
Based upon the differences in simple technology fro then to now it just becomes to complicated.
That is also completed costs, not best case estimates. If you you use the Big Dig cost overides as a multiplier then this solar plant will cost about 2 Billion dollars.
Slashdot Mirror
"Can they be recycled for parts or even software?"
Is the enviornmental impact of creating new software such a problem? Does it use more raw materials than re-using old software?
No No No
Global warming causes Volcanoes.
Just like it caused the Tsunami in Indonesia, the Kennedy assasination and male pattern baldness.
Damn Global Warming
http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=21648
Depends on who your trying to get to recognize the record.
m l
FAI requires you to cross all lines of longitude, and cover a distance equal to the tropic of Cancer.
With that I could do it with snowmobile at the North Pole so long as I had a large enough tanker to fuel me up.
Which is why many put in the Cross the equator twice business. Makes it a more realistic circumnavigation.
Baloonists are the ones that screwed up the equator requirements because they couldn't fly a baloon down and cross the equator due to the prevailing winds, others took advantage of that, your helicopter guys in point.
I always wanted to do a circumnavigation using a Hummer or Land Rover or such (with them footing the bill) by driving north and down into Siberia, and then across Europe, then find a land bridge into Africa. So could do an equator crossing in South America, and in Africa. Then head bact to North America through Scandinavia.
Land Rovver did it, they used ferries though, I think that's cheating.
hmmmmm Looks like someone else is doing it for charity. http://www.drivearoundtheworld.com/route/index.ht
Come to think of it.
67 hours in a cramped airplane, only to land at his starting point....
Sounds like a couple of commercial aviation flights I've been on. At least that's what it seems like.
35,000 Kilometers and crossing the equator twice.
Look at the weight and MPG of the others.
The difference is minor at best.
Don't particulaly see the relevance.
Proof that one action didn't happen, is not proof that every action hasn't happened.
Sure live in a universe with 0 Risk.
You assume any change from what we have now will destroy mankind. What if rather than a 500 Billion helmet, we could solve any issues with 200 Billion in re-location funds, or some such.
However, there is plenty of evidence that a slightly warmer world will be beneficial to mankind (It's happened before and mankind as well as flora and fauna did great).
As to O3 and UV, there is little evidence that shows real danger, and even if it does happen, extra radiation also gives us greater genetic diversity, and the other negative effects are bad, but easily coped with.
In otherwords, if you really want a better life, stop worrying about imaginary boogeymen. If you stop listening to the guy on the crate shouting "THE END IS NEAR" he'll eventually go away and maybe you both can enjoy life a little.
YEah unfortunately it's a gag that made my rerigerator more expensive, and my AC useless.
And now Freon costs as much as Cocaine.
You of course ralize that Ozone is a completely renawable rescource.
All you need is some oxygen, and some UV radiation. Bang zoom, more ozone. Problm solved.
Fine arguement.
Unfortumately it falls apart when you find out the helmet is going to cost you 300 Billion dollars and the destruction of your national industries.
So you survived the accident, your wife left you, your bank forclosed, and your boss fired you.
And it turns out the accident happened at 5mph and the only damage was a scratched fender.
Actually no-one has any tests of higher ground level UV that can't be attributed to solar output.
Other than that your spot on. For your own edification you may want to examine the patent dates on CFC's
Yeah, but since Ozone is produced when exposed to UV light, the protection is converting O2 to O3 not the mere existence of O3.
The ozone layer is between 11 and 16 miles altitude.
Meaning that even if we completely wiped out the oone layer it would just move lower in altitude.
This can alsoo be tested in the lab.
and 1/15th or 7% of what it has also been in the past.
The earth is tad bit more than 300,000 years old, creationisim aside.
Ufortunatley this is lso true of:
Minivans
Full-sized cars
Sports cars
Meaning your only focusing on one because your an idealouge.
Ooh cost of 8.33 Billion dollars (we'll count the turbines later) is 41.6 MIllion dollars per megawatt.
Of course it is, as our most building projects, though the big dig is the extreme.
n cons.htm
CN Tower, 57 Million dollars, assuming linear costs, that still put the tower itself at over 1/2 their lowball budget. And while the CN tower doesn't cost as much as high rise office tower, a 1 kilometer tall tower (and the support structures required) costs more than a simple do nothing but look nice tower. The CN tower doesn't have any turbines in it, how many turbines were they proposing (small ones are about 1/3 of a million)
"It'll be more like warehouse or greenhouse space, and those are relatively cheap per square foot or acre."
Hey, you're right, greenhouses are cheap per sq, foot.
http://www.wvu.edu/~agexten/hortcult/greenhou/gre
At $7.56 per sq foot, this proposed system of 1.089 billion sq feet would cost 8.23 Billion dollars.
Man those overuns are starting early.
"Err, what doesn't hold up?"
No the arguement that turbines are much more efficient today than the were almost 1/2 a century ago. POwer plants also werent of the 200 Megawatt size in the 50's, Most convential plants were about 10Mw in size. Nuclear plants scale well, they built it at 60Mw because that was way bigger than they ever expected anyone would need, in a day when peoples power consumption was a fraction of what it is today.
"You're only trying to make it complicated "
No, a question was asked, I answered it, making sure I included the date as well, for comparison. I didn't get into the real world costs from then to today because it would take a team of econmists years of arguing to come up with a wrong answer.
"That's an insane thing to do"
Yeah? I work in capital construction business, incluiding sideline involvement in the big dig. To give a comparison, Taipei 101 cost 1.7 Billion dollars, it's only half the height of that tower, and that cost doesn't inclde the cost of building a roof over a city the size of Naples Florida.
200 - 500 million dollars seems ridiculously low.
To give a real world approximation, it's the equivalent of putting a roof over the majority of Boston and it surrounding neighborhoods, then building a 1 kilometer tower in the center of it.
A tower twice as tall as the largest building in the world, with a big generator at the top.
I don't know. the 1 Billion (with a "B") + square feet of plastic, and the metal framework to support it, might have something to do with it.
California is only 376 Square miles?
Looks beigger on the map, must be that Mecator distortion they are always talking about.
Accouunting for inflation yes.
But if you factor in the turbine efficiency of 1957 to today it doesn't hold up.
Based upon the differences in simple technology fro then to now it just becomes to complicated.
That is also completed costs, not best case estimates. If you you use the Big Dig cost overides as a multiplier then this solar plant will cost about 2 Billion dollars.
Unless you adjut for inflation, then you realize that gas costs about what a third it did in the 70's.