Theft happens in a second. Kid's back is turned and it's gone. After class, on the bus, at a fast food etc.
Yes, and the likely culprit is usually obvious.
You obviously don't game. Try and game on Intel integrated graphics, you'll only have to try it once. My 13" Mac Book Air only has an on board graphics card, an "Intel HD Graphics 5000 1536 MB".
What's the average life of a kid's laptop? No idea... my younger brothers (12 and 14) have 5 and 8 year old laptops.
Well, I'm comfortable in a wide range, but ofc I adjust clothing. However in summer I find it absurd to wear clothing, that is suited for outside, and need extra warm clothing for inside, because it is to cold inisde. My GF in Thailand is coling down her car to minimum, something between 16-18C. I even got a bladder infection because I litteraly freeze my ass off. On top of that inside, they use AC, only cooled down to about 20C but then they have fans everywhere. There is nothing worse for me than cold air flow, I really hate it:P
Todays laptops are fast enough for any thinkable game.
If his father has the money, who cares?
With 14 I had no computer, but with 16 I had my own Apple IIc compatible, portable computer. Most kids I know have a laptop, or access to it, around age 10 - 12. And laptop does not necessarily mean you take it to school, but perhaps to your grandparents, to friends etc.
I did not say 'crime free society'. Howeve at a scholl only another pupil, or a teacher, can steal a lptop. So: super easy to find the culprit, in other words: super unlikely that one steals it.
The cleanup teams where about 600k conscript recruits. Nearly all of them are dead meanwhile, however they should be roughly 45 years old now. Nut perhaps you are right and they all died due to a natural case:)
Human body temperature is 100F/37C. Both in summer as in winter 70/21 is to cold for me.
I actualy avoid AC like a plague, I can not understand why people cool down houses/offices so far that you need to wear a suit to be able to tollerate it.
Second, we'll hear people claim that we can run a grid on wind and solar alone. If someone claims that, he is an idiot. And if you believe him, you are an idiot, too.
So now you want to argue with postulated idiots arguments... or what?
I believe you should drop this argument I never made this argument...
Of course, technically you could have a bunch of nuclear power plants, and a few load balancing plants, France shows that.
So, I still miss your point, except that you think hat some people claim you can run a grid on solar and wind without anything to perform load balancing.
Pfft... Always full with assumptions. Which country was amoung the first to build a thorium reactor? So, yes, I have a good idea what types we are thinking about and how they work. Actually I believe I learned that in school.
However I'm not aware about a single working thorium reactor in the USA, and a quick googeling does not show up any as well. You have any sources?
You can use nuclear power for load following if you want. France is doing it.
And modern reactors ramp up faster than old ones which were specifically designed to be base load.
Typical load following (noT: not balancing) plants are coal, all over the world. How you use a coal/hydro plant basically depends on context... the 100 other plants you are running determine what you use with a certain gas/hydro plant.
Fusion was a wet dream 50 years ago. In our times it goes the same way as fission. The price will never be able to compete with solar, wind, biomass, hydro or what ever other form of renewables we invent. Not to mention that we are probably 50 years away from being able to build a fusion reactor that is net positive in terms of energy. Fusion might be a big thing in space craft propulsion, on the planet: never ever.
Chernobyl killed a million. In an area that is not even densely populated. If the infamous three miles island plant had gone boom like Chernobyl you had several millions of deaths next years. Germany would be similar bad, basically every nuclear plant is close to a densely populated area. The main reason why everyone hates them.
If you have 100% of your power production with nuclear power plants: Then 40% are running at 95% nameplate (base power) Then 20% are running at about 50% nameplate (load following stage 1) Then another 20% are running at 20% nameplate (load following stage 2, around peak times) The rest is running at 10% or less of nameplate (peak following, balancing power)
Nameplate or "capacity factors" are completely ridiculous "terms" for argumentation about properties of different technologies.
In other words: it is close to impossible to run a country, or controlled grid, with nukes alone. You need pumped storage for balancing power, and/or gas turbines.
Arguing with nameplate makes no sense, when you get the wind power and solar power for free versus coal or uran which costs.
Slashdot Mirror
So you are one if the idiots who believe that a Thorium reactor does not produce radioactive waste?
Especially when there is little risk of natural disasters in Germany.
That is nonsense.
Nearly all reactors are on fault lines.
the current solution is Nuclear Energy.
It is not, Germany only had about 20% contribution by nuclear power, now it is about 12% IIRC.
lignite, the dirtiest kind of coal. ... regardless if hard coal or lignite.
That is no longer true since 20 or 30 years.
All coal plants have scrubbers
Theft happens in a second. Kid's back is turned and it's gone. After class, on the bus, at a fast food etc.
Yes, and the likely culprit is usually obvious.
You obviously don't game. Try and game on Intel integrated graphics, you'll only have to try it once.
My 13" Mac Book Air only has an on board graphics card, an "Intel HD Graphics 5000 1536 MB".
What's the average life of a kid's laptop? ... my younger brothers (12 and 14) have 5 and 8 year old laptops.
No idea
No bank is holding an "account balance" in gold.
Why would they?
The total amount of gold on the planet is probably less than 1000 cubic meters. (I mean mined gold, not remaining gold in the crust).
We were talking about AC.
I guess some people contributed, otherwise I wonder who payed for the launch.
However there was no fee or payment involved when I joined.
Even a photovoltaic cell is subject to the Carnot limit on efficiency.
That is bolocks.
The percentage of christians that are spiritual is extremely low.
For spirituallity you don't need guidelines, especially not christian ones.
Well, :P
I'm comfortable in a wide range, but ofc I adjust clothing. However in summer I find it absurd to wear clothing, that is suited for outside, and need extra warm clothing for inside, because it is to cold inisde.
My GF in Thailand is coling down her car to minimum, something between 16-18C. I even got a bladder infection because I litteraly freeze my ass off.
On top of that inside, they use AC, only cooled down to about 20C but then they have fans everywhere.
There is nothing worse for me than cold air flow, I really hate it
Todays laptops are fast enough for any thinkable game.
If his father has the money, who cares?
With 14 I had no computer, but with 16 I had my own Apple IIc compatible, portable computer. Most kids I know have a laptop, or access to it, around age 10 - 12. And laptop does not necessarily mean you take it to school, but perhaps to your grandparents, to friends etc.
I did not say 'crime free society'. Howeve at a scholl only another pupil, or a teacher, can steal a lptop. So: super easy to find the culprit, in other words: super unlikely that one steals it.
The cleanup teams where about 600k conscript recruits. :)
Nearly all of them are dead meanwhile, however they should be roughly 45 years old now.
Nut perhaps you are right and they all died due to a natural case
Human body temperature is 100F/37C.
Both in summer as in winter 70/21 is to cold for me.
I actualy avoid AC like a plague, I can not understand why people cool down houses/offices so far that you need to wear a suit to be able to tollerate it.
Perhaps you should first make a Beowolf cluster with them?
Then you could open/close all doors/windows in your neighbourhood!
Second, we'll hear people claim that we can run a grid on wind and solar alone.
If someone claims that, he is an idiot.
And if you believe him, you are an idiot, too.
So now you want to argue with postulated idiots arguments ... or what?
I believe you should drop this argument ...
I never made this argument
Of course, technically you could have a bunch of nuclear power plants, and a few load balancing plants, France shows that.
So, I still miss your point, except that you think hat some people claim you can run a grid on solar and wind without anything to perform load balancing.
Pfft ...
Always full with assumptions.
Which country was amoung the first to build a thorium reactor? So, yes, I have a good idea what types we are thinking about and how they work. Actually I believe I learned that in school.
However I'm not aware about a single working thorium reactor in the USA, and a quick googeling does not show up any as well. You have any sources?
I guess the UK has secret power plants that power so many transactions, for free even :D
Sorry,
you want to tell me that people die to "bio mass energy plant accidents".
How the funk should that even be possible?
Chernobyl killed about a million. No idea how you calculate that down to 90 per trillion kWh.
You can use nuclear power for load following if you want.
France is doing it.
And modern reactors ramp up faster than old ones which were specifically designed to be base load.
Typical load following (noT: not balancing) plants are coal, all over the world. How you use a coal/hydro plant basically depends on context ... the 100 other plants you are running determine what you use with a certain gas/hydro plant.
Chernobyl was cleaned up by 600,000 conscripted soldiers.
500,000 of them are proven dead now.
Probably they all died to car accidents?
You are an idiot.
Nuclear power is not cheap, but it costs less than living in the dark.
I start liking your logic.
How much does living in the dark cost in your country? Perhaps you want to blame Germany again that "living in the dark" is more expensive here?
Fusion was a wet dream 50 years ago.
In our times it goes the same way as fission.
The price will never be able to compete with solar, wind, biomass, hydro or what ever other form of renewables we invent. Not to mention that we are probably 50 years away from being able to build a fusion reactor that is net positive in terms of energy.
Fusion might be a big thing in space craft propulsion, on the planet: never ever.
Chernobyl killed a million. In an area that is not even densely populated.
If the infamous three miles island plant had gone boom like Chernobyl you had several millions of deaths next years.
Germany would be similar bad, basically every nuclear plant is close to a densely populated area. The main reason why everyone hates them.
Well, ...
nameplate. Wow
If you have 100% of your power production with nuclear power plants:
Then 40% are running at 95% nameplate (base power)
Then 20% are running at about 50% nameplate (load following stage 1)
Then another 20% are running at 20% nameplate (load following stage 2, around peak times)
The rest is running at 10% or less of nameplate (peak following, balancing power)
Nameplate or "capacity factors" are completely ridiculous "terms" for argumentation about properties of different technologies.
In other words: it is close to impossible to run a country, or controlled grid, with nukes alone. You need pumped storage for balancing power, and/or gas turbines.
Arguing with nameplate makes no sense, when you get the wind power and solar power for free versus coal or uran which costs.
The german thorium reactor in the 1980s failed badly.
India is about to finish one right now.
The idea of JaneQPublic, that a melt down is inherently impossible is false anyway. I bet such a reactor can be intentionally sabotaged easily.