if a gas turbine was only 30% efficient, why would anyone buy one?
I don't know, how about you ask the people buying them? Also, tell me how efficient they are if you dispute the 30% efficiency. Oh, and provide a citation, like this one:
The basics of having to carry both fuel and oxidizer in a battery while with gasoline the oxidizer is pulled from the air. If you have an "air breathing battery" then that's pushing the definition of a battery, that's more a fuel cell than a battery.
I could go on but I'll just stop at the definition of a battery. At least for now.
Define "usable energy storage". A quick look at Wikipedia tells me that Li-air batteries have 1/5 the specific energy of gasoline. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Assuming that's true then what's your plan to meet that goal? BP presumably has a lot of well paid, very intelligent, and highly educated, people to work on this report and they determined that it won't happen before 2040. I have my doubts you can come up with a better plan, and also make it happen.
Again, assume we need to reduce our CO2 output to zero before 2040, how will we get there? Given that Europe is building a bunch of big gas pipelines from Russia it seems quite clear that they have no intention of eliminating their CO2 output in 20 years. There's a bunch of gas lines being built in North America as well. Japan is drilling for more natural gas off their shores. Just generally pick a place on this planet and you will find plans for the continued use of natural gas for at least 20 years. I'm pretty sure BP has their predictions at least half right, as well paid and intelligent these people might be they are still flawed human beings.
It sure would be nice to get to zero CO2 output instead of a "random percentage" by 2040. It won't happen though.
The basics of chemical storage of energy means that no battery can ever be as energy dense as gasoline.
(btw gasoline is not safe.)
Nothing is truly safe, it's all relative. We might find something more energy dense but then it's less safe. We can certainly find materials that are safer but far less energy dense. Given that balance of energy density, convenience, safety, and cost there is not much that can compete with gasoline.
Batteries are not safe either. They can electrocute, burn, even explode, if not handled with due care. Kind of like how gasoline can injure, maim, or kill, if not handled with care.
If you want to tell me that gasoline is not safe then tell me what your alternatives would be. Again, batteries are not safe. You want to tell me that batteries are not dangerous? They might be safer than gasoline but then there's the other problems of convenience, energy density, and cost. Lots of people tried to make a more energy dense battery and what we inevitably get are less safe batteries. We will fill an airplane with many tons of fuel but when it comes to high energy density batteries those are kept to only a few pounds before the crew gets real nervous.
Whatever. Go compute the material needs, and the money it would take to buy them, then get back to me on that.
There's a reason why we dam up rivers and not just build a huge water tank in the middle of pancake flat Nebraska to store energy. That path to energy storage is a roadmap to nowhere.
There is nothing as energy dense, convenient, safe, and inexpensive as hydrocarbons. Maybe we can replace those hydrocarbons with something not from petroleum. Maybe we will use fuels other than hydrocarbons, but that doesn't mean the end for the internal combustion engine. The ICE is just too well entrenched in the culture, economy, and infrastructure to be replaced so quickly.
Part of this infrastructure is the existing stock of vehicles themselves. A common diesel powered truck, tractor, locomotive, ship, or whatever, have a lifespan of decades. Anything sold in the last decade up to today will have a better than 50/50 chance of still being in use in 20 years. Even if no one made spare parts the existing stock of vehicles becomes a supply of spare parts. Then there's things like 3D printing and good old fashioned cottage industry of small time machine shops. People will be burning ethanol, vegetable oil, lubricating grease, solvents, or whatever else they can mix up to keep the wheels turning if something interrupts the supply of petroleum.
No, the ICE will not be obsolete in20 years. Not unless there's some great leap in technology. That leap is unlikely to come from batteries. Sure, maybe the commuter car can be replaced with electrics. That won't mean much for the other vehicles that move, on the road and off.
Power storage via batteries, or physical energy storage like flywheels, water / weight, all can make wind and solar more viable, as well as improving usage of traditional power as well.
I'll emphasize the benefits to traditional power. Those power storage technologies would work well in allowing cheap and efficient coal power to match changing demand, just as they do now for the changing supply of wind and solar.
There is a lack of foresight in thinking that cheap storage will clear a path for wind and solar. That is required, I have no doubt, but insufficient. These technologies could just as easily be what is needed to clear a path for nuclear, "clean coal", or something else.
Fukushima melted down because the backup batteries ran dead before the generators could be started or a replacement power line could be run. If they had a "giga-battery" in Japan like Tesla built for Australia then no one would have heard of Fukushima.
But natural gas is good enough for the purposes of greatly exceeding any desired reductions, and it can serve the needs of countries too fearful and ignorant to enjoy the benefits of nuclear power.
Yep, pretty much.
The only places where wind and solar can really meet any large portion of a nation's energy needs are in places where they have an abundance of hydro power for storage. Turning the peaks and valleys of wind and solar power into a steady and reliable energy supply means storage, and lots of it. There is no battery technology that can compete with hydro. Without storage like hydro that storage needs to come from something else, and that energy storage is tanks filled with natural gas.
They have a chance from building third and fourth generation nuclear rather than letting their fear of nuclear power compel them to run second generation power plants well beyond their designed lifespan. The Fukushima nuclear power plant was built before Chernobyl. Even though they did upgrades to improve safety they still had to deal with 1960s technology and all the hazards that came with it. Build something new by learning from 60 years of mistakes and you will get something exceedingly safe.
Japan learned from their mistakes. Or so it seems. They are finally starting to build new nuclear after this, they tried doing without nuclear and that was not sustainable. They were losing big on their economy and their air quality. They also won't be building nuclear power plants based on 60 year old designs.
Clearly these folks and their ideas are funded by the oil industry.
Of course. There will be no wind and solar dominating without the oil industry. From those oil wells comes a lot of natural gas, and that natural gas will be needed as backup power for the unreliable wind and solar.
The oil companies have nothing to fear from wind and solar. They get to "greenwash" their industry by providing the natural gas to keep those windmills spinning. Oh, people do know that those windmills need power to get up to speed to catch the wind, right? They can't get going on their own, they take electricity to get started before they produce any on their own.
Then there is the transportation sector. There's not any airplanes without hydrocarbons. No cargo ship is going to cross an ocean without hydrocarbon fuels either. Maybe we can electrify the trains, and a few cars, but long haul trucks will still be burning diesel in 2040. If they switch to any other energy source then it's the natural gas they are talking about. Even if they are electric then it's natural gas that will produce a large portion of that electricity.
The oil industry has nothing to fear. Except nuclear. Did they even mention nuclear? The mentioned hydrogen but hydrogen isn't an energy source, no more than electricity is an energy source. Where would this hydrogen or electricity come from? It's going to be natural gas or nuclear power.
Maybe this was in fact funded by "big oil". By focusing on natural gas, wind, and solar, they can try to hide the benefits of nuclear power. This might work until everyone involved retires and they don't have to worry about what happens after that.
That's not what BP said! They did not claim that renewable energy would dominate, they said renewable AND NATURAL GAS would dominate.
Here's what has been discovered everywhere a switch to wind and solar has been tried, they are nothing more than a proxy for natural gas. When anyone claims that they will switch from coal to wind and solar what they really mean is that they will switch to wind, solar, and natural gas.
Here's where wind and solar just become proxies for natural gas. When building a backup system for wind and solar this backup must be able to come online quickly, in a matter of minutes as the system detects the wind or sun fading. That means natural gas turbines. Well a natural gas turbine is about 30% efficient. Because of the laws of physics, and cost constraints, this is about the best we can do. If this same natural gas was burned in a combined cycle power plant, where water is boiled for steam, then they can achieve efficiencies of about 60%. These plants, again because of physics and cost, cannot come online in minutes but instead take hours. This makes them unfit as backup for wind and solar.
So, what we have with wind and solar is burning the same amount of natural gas as if we had no wind and solar at all. This is building a bunch of worthless monuments to Gaia in hope of appeasing those worshiping this false god. In exchange we get higher energy costs and no real reductions in greenhouse gasses.
Oh, and did they even mention nuclear power? France has relied on nuclear power for much of their electricity supply and did well with that. There's an example of how to run a nation and keep CO2 output low. To those that claim nuclear power cannot be run safely, cheaply, or meet the needs of a modern economy need only look at the radioactive wasteland that is France. Oh, it's not radioactive like Chernobyl? That might be because they knew enough to put a containment dome over their reactors, and not have them run by drunken bureaucrats. What of Fukushima? You mean where thousands were dead and missing from a once in a thousand year tsunami? And only one known death from the actual reactor? That Fukushima? Certainly that's a mess but so is a lot of things from that tsunami. I guess people forgot the damage done by the massive wave and focused on the relative non-event that was the reactor. Oh, and we don't build reactors like those at Fukushima any more, and certainly not like at Chernobyl where they have no containment dome. We build them far safer now.
Nuclear power is safe, abundant, cheap, and reliable. There is no reduction of CO2 output without nuclear power. That's my prediction. We can deal with that reality now or we can ignore the facts and be dragged into the truth later. I don't much care what anyone says, the debate is over (to recycle a phrase) and nuclear is our future.
No, he's a potential new customer, which actually makes him more valuable.
There's a balance here. Switching to USB-C could mean gaining new customers but also losing existing customers.
What does anyone gain with USB-C over Lightning anyway? USB-C can handle more power but the battery in a cell phone is unlikely to take advantage of it. Lightning and USB-C can both give USB 3.0 speeds. USB-C can go faster because of more data lanes and such but, again, in a phone this is unlikely much of an advantage. Could USB-C mean the ability to use more accessories? Maybe, but that also comes with the cost of people complaining that Apple did USB-C "wrong" because their non-compliant USB device doesn't work. By sticking with Lightning they have some control on the accessories that makes the Apple "ecosystem" more user friendly, if perhaps more expensive, for the user.
There's a potential for losses on a switch too, not only gains. It sucks that Apple chose to stick with the wimpy 5 watt charger but that likely is also a compromise between cost, compliance with laws, user convenience, and so on.
Once you have a customer under your umbrella it's easier to keep them there, because many people don't want to go through the hassle change entails, so you can spend more energy trying to create churn that benefits you.
Right, people don't like change. Change too much and you lose your existing customers.
You made assumptions about what I believe based on a single statement, as if the world is split into black and white, us and them, and to know everything on what one believes you need only be told one thing. In your mind everyone must be people that agree with you on everything or disagree on everything. Well there is nuance to many things. Here's something you should perhaps consider, instead of making assumptions on what people believe maybe you should ask. You know what happens when you make an assumption? You make an "ass" out of "u" and "mption".
You are just making an ass out of yourself by arguing with someone that largely agrees with you. I'm reading the definition of a word in the US Constitution slightly different than you and so, by your assumption, I must therefore disagree with you on a great many things. I don't.
I reply to you because it amuses me, stringing you along and saying nothing but how wrong you've been on what I believe. If you want to know what I believe then all you had to do was ask. Instead you continue to make assumptions, and argue with a figment of your imagination.
Oh, and another reason I don't much care to share where I agree with you is because I don't want to in any way be associated with people like yourself, posting insults over a minor disagreement.
I'm done with you. You know next to nothing of what I believe. You are arguing with a figment in your mind and pasting it upon me, for some odd reason. Go argue with someone that actually disagrees with you on more important things than the definition of "army" in the late 1700s.
I don't actually understand how people can get high on vicodin, it doesn't work.
Genetics, that's why some people get high off of it and others do not. I could not find a citation for this as quickly as I hoped but there's research on this. Vicodin is a semi-synthetic opioid, which seems to make the side effects vary much more among users than natural opioids, like codeine.
But from my anecdotal experience, the doctors in USA are just barbaric butchers so they have to prescribe something.
Right, because it had nothing to do with the extraction of different teeth that might have required very different means of extraction.
I've had wisdom teeth pulled, by American dentists, and the extraction was short and far from "barbaric". Maybe you simply chose your dentists poorly.
You are blaming the consumer with "It helps if you don't buy cheap shit cables."
I'll admit to being a bit rude about it but all I'm really saying is, "buyer beware". Be careful of what you buy from whom, which is just generally good advice.
Here's a thought. USB-A works, all the time. Leaving aside micro USB connectors which are terrible (too easy to break), USB-A is cheap, reliable, and always works.
I may be mistaken but I'm quite certain that USB-A continues to be part of the spec. Leave aside the micro connectors if you like, and the USB-C connectors too. If you want to stick to just USB-A then be my guest.
No, it wasn't worth solving the upside down problem. Not even close. The people who designed USB-C are techno-nerds who are willing to fiddle around with something for half an hour. They broke a viable USB ecosystem and justify it based upon minor wins that don't move the bar on anything important.
That's your interpretation of events. Here's mine. I believe the USB Promoters Group (which is an unusual name for the publishers of the spec, but whatever) are a group of people that spent a good deal of time figuring out how to balance price, ease of use, and capability. I believe they did a fine job of it too.
Where the problem lies is in the large number of people that make look-a-likes that confuse the public with poorly designed shit. Buy the stuff with the USB trademark on it, from dealers with a good reputation, and you won't be setting your house on fire from an overloaded wire. The USB spec allows the use of only 6 plug types and 5 port types, the size and shape of each are quite easily identified. Each port and cable is required to be labeled to match it's capability. If there is no such label then they violated the spec. If you can't understand the labels then I question your intelligence, it's not all that hard.
It's just "buyer beware". Taking what I wrote as anything more is making a mountain out of an ant hill. If USB-C confuses and angers you so much then just avoid it as best you can. USB-C "broke" nothing. If you don't like it then don't use it.
Because we couldn't use clean energy like solar or wind (that is battery backed if you want more reliability) that uses a resistive heating wire (like an electric stove top element)?
Right, you can't. Solar and wind power cost too much, is horribly unreliable, takes an incredible amount of land and other resources, and any claims that batteries will solve these problems only adds to the cost and resources consumed.
Burning plastic releases highly toxic gasses and unless you have extremely hot incinerators with scrubbers to remove all the toxins then you're going to make people sick. Also the ash & sludge from the incinerator is highly toxic too.
Assuming that's true, that we can't burn it safely and/or economically, then bury it. We aren't going to run out of holes to dump things into any time soon.
Yep, my mistake for confusing Fahrenheit for Celsius. There's still the issue of where this energy comes from. Nuclear power is still the lowest carbon energy source we know of. Anything other than nuclear power is not nearly as good of a solution for the reduction of global warming. Best part is it produces the heat needed without the inefficiency of converting the energy collected into electricity and then converting that into heat.
Is global warming a problem? Then let's use the best tools for the job to fix it.
For alpha particles to be harmful you'd have to eat the material producing them. A few inches of air, our clothes, and even the thin dead layers of skin on our bodies, is enough to stop the alpha particles from doing harm. Inside the body though they can cause harm. So, don't eat the uranium.
Due to the short range of absorption and inability to penetrate the outer layers of skin, alpha particles are not, in general, dangerous to life unless the source is ingested or inhaled.
Don't eat the uranium and you'll have nothing to worry about.
You have to have a license to have a dog. Why not a license to have a kid?
We used to have that, it was called a marriage license. That didn't mean people didn't have children outside of marriage but it did mean a license could be denied if a person was "unfit". Those with children out of wedlock were socially shunned, barred from certain government benefits, and so on. To get a license the government and/or church tended to look for things like if the people were old enough, mentally fit, financially stable, not closely related, and more subjective things like "good moral character". It was a good system that many parts of the world adhered to for thousands of years.
When people thought it unnecessary to get married before having children things tended to not go well for the children. Then we also got people that thought they were due the legal benefits of marriage even though they were unable or unwilling to have any children. Now a marriage license means nothing. In some parts of the world it's quite normal to not get married like we think of it today, with a ceremony and signed legal documents. Instead they get married like before we had marriage licenses where the couple simply make a verbal contract with each other to raise a family. I believe the verbal contract between two future parents is far more important than any license. A couple can sign all the papers in the world but if they have no real intent to stick together then the children have a high probability of poverty, crime, ignorance, and just generally anti-social behavior.
Yep, we had a license to have children. Then people that thought they knew better tore it to pieces, set it on fire, then pissed on the ashes.
Slashdot Mirror
density isn't the most important consideration anymore
Where did I say it was?
if a gas turbine was only 30% efficient, why would anyone buy one?
I don't know, how about you ask the people buying them? Also, tell me how efficient they are if you dispute the 30% efficiency. Oh, and provide a citation, like this one:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
When the gas turbine is used solely for shaft power, its thermal efficiency is about 30%
Then you can tell me again on how solar power is "reliable" while natural gas is "dispatchable". Your answer lies in those definitions.
The basics of having to carry both fuel and oxidizer in a battery while with gasoline the oxidizer is pulled from the air. If you have an "air breathing battery" then that's pushing the definition of a battery, that's more a fuel cell than a battery.
I could go on but I'll just stop at the definition of a battery. At least for now.
Define "usable energy storage". A quick look at Wikipedia tells me that Li-air batteries have 1/5 the specific energy of gasoline.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
In other words, citation needed.
We need 100% reduction, not a random percentage.
Assuming that's true then what's your plan to meet that goal? BP presumably has a lot of well paid, very intelligent, and highly educated, people to work on this report and they determined that it won't happen before 2040. I have my doubts you can come up with a better plan, and also make it happen.
Again, assume we need to reduce our CO2 output to zero before 2040, how will we get there? Given that Europe is building a bunch of big gas pipelines from Russia it seems quite clear that they have no intention of eliminating their CO2 output in 20 years. There's a bunch of gas lines being built in North America as well. Japan is drilling for more natural gas off their shores. Just generally pick a place on this planet and you will find plans for the continued use of natural gas for at least 20 years. I'm pretty sure BP has their predictions at least half right, as well paid and intelligent these people might be they are still flawed human beings.
It sure would be nice to get to zero CO2 output instead of a "random percentage" by 2040. It won't happen though.
Hopefully batteries will be in 20 years.
The basics of chemical storage of energy means that no battery can ever be as energy dense as gasoline.
(btw gasoline is not safe.)
Nothing is truly safe, it's all relative. We might find something more energy dense but then it's less safe. We can certainly find materials that are safer but far less energy dense. Given that balance of energy density, convenience, safety, and cost there is not much that can compete with gasoline.
Batteries are not safe either. They can electrocute, burn, even explode, if not handled with due care. Kind of like how gasoline can injure, maim, or kill, if not handled with care.
If you want to tell me that gasoline is not safe then tell me what your alternatives would be. Again, batteries are not safe. You want to tell me that batteries are not dangerous? They might be safer than gasoline but then there's the other problems of convenience, energy density, and cost. Lots of people tried to make a more energy dense battery and what we inevitably get are less safe batteries. We will fill an airplane with many tons of fuel but when it comes to high energy density batteries those are kept to only a few pounds before the crew gets real nervous.
Gasoline is not safe? Compared to what?
Whatever. Go compute the material needs, and the money it would take to buy them, then get back to me on that.
There's a reason why we dam up rivers and not just build a huge water tank in the middle of pancake flat Nebraska to store energy. That path to energy storage is a roadmap to nowhere.
http://www.roadmaptonowhere.co...
No, they won't.
There is nothing as energy dense, convenient, safe, and inexpensive as hydrocarbons. Maybe we can replace those hydrocarbons with something not from petroleum. Maybe we will use fuels other than hydrocarbons, but that doesn't mean the end for the internal combustion engine. The ICE is just too well entrenched in the culture, economy, and infrastructure to be replaced so quickly.
Part of this infrastructure is the existing stock of vehicles themselves. A common diesel powered truck, tractor, locomotive, ship, or whatever, have a lifespan of decades. Anything sold in the last decade up to today will have a better than 50/50 chance of still being in use in 20 years. Even if no one made spare parts the existing stock of vehicles becomes a supply of spare parts. Then there's things like 3D printing and good old fashioned cottage industry of small time machine shops. People will be burning ethanol, vegetable oil, lubricating grease, solvents, or whatever else they can mix up to keep the wheels turning if something interrupts the supply of petroleum.
No, the ICE will not be obsolete in20 years. Not unless there's some great leap in technology. That leap is unlikely to come from batteries. Sure, maybe the commuter car can be replaced with electrics. That won't mean much for the other vehicles that move, on the road and off.
Power storage via batteries, or physical energy storage like flywheels, water / weight, all can make wind and solar more viable, as well as improving usage of traditional power as well.
I'll emphasize the benefits to traditional power. Those power storage technologies would work well in allowing cheap and efficient coal power to match changing demand, just as they do now for the changing supply of wind and solar.
There is a lack of foresight in thinking that cheap storage will clear a path for wind and solar. That is required, I have no doubt, but insufficient. These technologies could just as easily be what is needed to clear a path for nuclear, "clean coal", or something else.
Fukushima melted down because the backup batteries ran dead before the generators could be started or a replacement power line could be run. If they had a "giga-battery" in Japan like Tesla built for Australia then no one would have heard of Fukushima.
But natural gas is good enough for the purposes of greatly exceeding any desired reductions, and it can serve the needs of countries too fearful and ignorant to enjoy the benefits of nuclear power.
Yep, pretty much.
The only places where wind and solar can really meet any large portion of a nation's energy needs are in places where they have an abundance of hydro power for storage. Turning the peaks and valleys of wind and solar power into a steady and reliable energy supply means storage, and lots of it. There is no battery technology that can compete with hydro. Without storage like hydro that storage needs to come from something else, and that energy storage is tanks filled with natural gas.
They have a chance from building third and fourth generation nuclear rather than letting their fear of nuclear power compel them to run second generation power plants well beyond their designed lifespan. The Fukushima nuclear power plant was built before Chernobyl. Even though they did upgrades to improve safety they still had to deal with 1960s technology and all the hazards that came with it. Build something new by learning from 60 years of mistakes and you will get something exceedingly safe.
Japan learned from their mistakes. Or so it seems. They are finally starting to build new nuclear after this, they tried doing without nuclear and that was not sustainable. They were losing big on their economy and their air quality. They also won't be building nuclear power plants based on 60 year old designs.
Clearly these folks and their ideas are funded by the oil industry.
Of course. There will be no wind and solar dominating without the oil industry. From those oil wells comes a lot of natural gas, and that natural gas will be needed as backup power for the unreliable wind and solar.
The oil companies have nothing to fear from wind and solar. They get to "greenwash" their industry by providing the natural gas to keep those windmills spinning. Oh, people do know that those windmills need power to get up to speed to catch the wind, right? They can't get going on their own, they take electricity to get started before they produce any on their own.
Then there is the transportation sector. There's not any airplanes without hydrocarbons. No cargo ship is going to cross an ocean without hydrocarbon fuels either. Maybe we can electrify the trains, and a few cars, but long haul trucks will still be burning diesel in 2040. If they switch to any other energy source then it's the natural gas they are talking about. Even if they are electric then it's natural gas that will produce a large portion of that electricity.
The oil industry has nothing to fear. Except nuclear. Did they even mention nuclear? The mentioned hydrogen but hydrogen isn't an energy source, no more than electricity is an energy source. Where would this hydrogen or electricity come from? It's going to be natural gas or nuclear power.
Maybe this was in fact funded by "big oil". By focusing on natural gas, wind, and solar, they can try to hide the benefits of nuclear power. This might work until everyone involved retires and they don't have to worry about what happens after that.
That's not what BP said! They did not claim that renewable energy would dominate, they said renewable AND NATURAL GAS would dominate.
Here's what has been discovered everywhere a switch to wind and solar has been tried, they are nothing more than a proxy for natural gas. When anyone claims that they will switch from coal to wind and solar what they really mean is that they will switch to wind, solar, and natural gas.
Here's where wind and solar just become proxies for natural gas. When building a backup system for wind and solar this backup must be able to come online quickly, in a matter of minutes as the system detects the wind or sun fading. That means natural gas turbines. Well a natural gas turbine is about 30% efficient. Because of the laws of physics, and cost constraints, this is about the best we can do. If this same natural gas was burned in a combined cycle power plant, where water is boiled for steam, then they can achieve efficiencies of about 60%. These plants, again because of physics and cost, cannot come online in minutes but instead take hours. This makes them unfit as backup for wind and solar.
So, what we have with wind and solar is burning the same amount of natural gas as if we had no wind and solar at all. This is building a bunch of worthless monuments to Gaia in hope of appeasing those worshiping this false god. In exchange we get higher energy costs and no real reductions in greenhouse gasses.
Oh, and did they even mention nuclear power? France has relied on nuclear power for much of their electricity supply and did well with that. There's an example of how to run a nation and keep CO2 output low. To those that claim nuclear power cannot be run safely, cheaply, or meet the needs of a modern economy need only look at the radioactive wasteland that is France. Oh, it's not radioactive like Chernobyl? That might be because they knew enough to put a containment dome over their reactors, and not have them run by drunken bureaucrats. What of Fukushima? You mean where thousands were dead and missing from a once in a thousand year tsunami? And only one known death from the actual reactor? That Fukushima? Certainly that's a mess but so is a lot of things from that tsunami. I guess people forgot the damage done by the massive wave and focused on the relative non-event that was the reactor. Oh, and we don't build reactors like those at Fukushima any more, and certainly not like at Chernobyl where they have no containment dome. We build them far safer now.
Nuclear power is safe, abundant, cheap, and reliable. There is no reduction of CO2 output without nuclear power. That's my prediction. We can deal with that reality now or we can ignore the facts and be dragged into the truth later. I don't much care what anyone says, the debate is over (to recycle a phrase) and nuclear is our future.
No, he's a potential new customer, which actually makes him more valuable.
There's a balance here. Switching to USB-C could mean gaining new customers but also losing existing customers.
What does anyone gain with USB-C over Lightning anyway? USB-C can handle more power but the battery in a cell phone is unlikely to take advantage of it. Lightning and USB-C can both give USB 3.0 speeds. USB-C can go faster because of more data lanes and such but, again, in a phone this is unlikely much of an advantage. Could USB-C mean the ability to use more accessories? Maybe, but that also comes with the cost of people complaining that Apple did USB-C "wrong" because their non-compliant USB device doesn't work. By sticking with Lightning they have some control on the accessories that makes the Apple "ecosystem" more user friendly, if perhaps more expensive, for the user.
There's a potential for losses on a switch too, not only gains. It sucks that Apple chose to stick with the wimpy 5 watt charger but that likely is also a compromise between cost, compliance with laws, user convenience, and so on.
Once you have a customer under your umbrella it's easier to keep them there, because many people don't want to go through the hassle change entails, so you can spend more energy trying to create churn that benefits you.
Right, people don't like change. Change too much and you lose your existing customers.
You made assumptions about what I believe based on a single statement, as if the world is split into black and white, us and them, and to know everything on what one believes you need only be told one thing. In your mind everyone must be people that agree with you on everything or disagree on everything. Well there is nuance to many things. Here's something you should perhaps consider, instead of making assumptions on what people believe maybe you should ask. You know what happens when you make an assumption? You make an "ass" out of "u" and "mption".
You are just making an ass out of yourself by arguing with someone that largely agrees with you. I'm reading the definition of a word in the US Constitution slightly different than you and so, by your assumption, I must therefore disagree with you on a great many things. I don't.
I reply to you because it amuses me, stringing you along and saying nothing but how wrong you've been on what I believe. If you want to know what I believe then all you had to do was ask. Instead you continue to make assumptions, and argue with a figment of your imagination.
Oh, and another reason I don't much care to share where I agree with you is because I don't want to in any way be associated with people like yourself, posting insults over a minor disagreement.
I'm done with you. You know next to nothing of what I believe. You are arguing with a figment in your mind and pasting it upon me, for some odd reason. Go argue with someone that actually disagrees with you on more important things than the definition of "army" in the late 1700s.
I don't actually understand how people can get high on vicodin, it doesn't work.
Genetics, that's why some people get high off of it and others do not. I could not find a citation for this as quickly as I hoped but there's research on this. Vicodin is a semi-synthetic opioid, which seems to make the side effects vary much more among users than natural opioids, like codeine.
But from my anecdotal experience, the doctors in USA are just barbaric butchers so they have to prescribe something.
Right, because it had nothing to do with the extraction of different teeth that might have required very different means of extraction.
I've had wisdom teeth pulled, by American dentists, and the extraction was short and far from "barbaric". Maybe you simply chose your dentists poorly.
Tesla are the Apple for the car world. Expensive, extremely "loyal" fans who can't look at them objectively, and a somewhat dubious guy in charge.
As someone that has a lot of Apple products in his possession I'll say that's probably not too far from the truth.
Here's a question for you, how does a company "buy" loyalty like that? It comes from something, what is it?
If you figure out what that "magic ingredient" is then I'm guessing that you will become very wealthy yourself.
You are blaming the consumer with "It helps if you don't buy cheap shit cables."
I'll admit to being a bit rude about it but all I'm really saying is, "buyer beware". Be careful of what you buy from whom, which is just generally good advice.
Here's a thought. USB-A works, all the time. Leaving aside micro USB connectors which are terrible (too easy to break), USB-A is cheap, reliable, and always works.
I may be mistaken but I'm quite certain that USB-A continues to be part of the spec. Leave aside the micro connectors if you like, and the USB-C connectors too. If you want to stick to just USB-A then be my guest.
No, it wasn't worth solving the upside down problem. Not even close. The people who designed USB-C are techno-nerds who are willing to fiddle around with something for half an hour. They broke a viable USB ecosystem and justify it based upon minor wins that don't move the bar on anything important.
That's your interpretation of events. Here's mine. I believe the USB Promoters Group (which is an unusual name for the publishers of the spec, but whatever) are a group of people that spent a good deal of time figuring out how to balance price, ease of use, and capability. I believe they did a fine job of it too.
Where the problem lies is in the large number of people that make look-a-likes that confuse the public with poorly designed shit. Buy the stuff with the USB trademark on it, from dealers with a good reputation, and you won't be setting your house on fire from an overloaded wire. The USB spec allows the use of only 6 plug types and 5 port types, the size and shape of each are quite easily identified. Each port and cable is required to be labeled to match it's capability. If there is no such label then they violated the spec. If you can't understand the labels then I question your intelligence, it's not all that hard.
It's just "buyer beware". Taking what I wrote as anything more is making a mountain out of an ant hill. If USB-C confuses and angers you so much then just avoid it as best you can. USB-C "broke" nothing. If you don't like it then don't use it.
How do you know? On the internet nobody knows if there's a dog posting to Slashdot.
Because we couldn't use clean energy like solar or wind (that is battery backed if you want more reliability) that uses a resistive heating wire (like an electric stove top element)?
Right, you can't. Solar and wind power cost too much, is horribly unreliable, takes an incredible amount of land and other resources, and any claims that batteries will solve these problems only adds to the cost and resources consumed.
Burning plastic releases highly toxic gasses and unless you have extremely hot incinerators with scrubbers to remove all the toxins then you're going to make people sick. Also the ash & sludge from the incinerator is highly toxic too.
Assuming that's true, that we can't burn it safely and/or economically, then bury it. We aren't going to run out of holes to dump things into any time soon.
The only way you make something carbon neutral is to create a new carbon sink as your fuel source.
The Navy process does this. Claiming otherwise is a basic fail of understanding the process. Go look it up.
Either you are for a strict interpretation for the Constitution as it was written or amendmended, or you are not. You, sir, are not.
Still arguing with a figment of your imagination, I see.
Yep, my mistake for confusing Fahrenheit for Celsius. There's still the issue of where this energy comes from. Nuclear power is still the lowest carbon energy source we know of. Anything other than nuclear power is not nearly as good of a solution for the reduction of global warming. Best part is it produces the heat needed without the inefficiency of converting the energy collected into electricity and then converting that into heat.
Is global warming a problem? Then let's use the best tools for the job to fix it.
For alpha particles to be harmful you'd have to eat the material producing them. A few inches of air, our clothes, and even the thin dead layers of skin on our bodies, is enough to stop the alpha particles from doing harm. Inside the body though they can cause harm. So, don't eat the uranium.
Read a bit on it, here's a place to start:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Due to the short range of absorption and inability to penetrate the outer layers of skin, alpha particles are not, in general, dangerous to life unless the source is ingested or inhaled.
Don't eat the uranium and you'll have nothing to worry about.
You have to have a license to have a dog. Why not a license to have a kid?
We used to have that, it was called a marriage license. That didn't mean people didn't have children outside of marriage but it did mean a license could be denied if a person was "unfit". Those with children out of wedlock were socially shunned, barred from certain government benefits, and so on. To get a license the government and/or church tended to look for things like if the people were old enough, mentally fit, financially stable, not closely related, and more subjective things like "good moral character". It was a good system that many parts of the world adhered to for thousands of years.
When people thought it unnecessary to get married before having children things tended to not go well for the children. Then we also got people that thought they were due the legal benefits of marriage even though they were unable or unwilling to have any children. Now a marriage license means nothing. In some parts of the world it's quite normal to not get married like we think of it today, with a ceremony and signed legal documents. Instead they get married like before we had marriage licenses where the couple simply make a verbal contract with each other to raise a family. I believe the verbal contract between two future parents is far more important than any license. A couple can sign all the papers in the world but if they have no real intent to stick together then the children have a high probability of poverty, crime, ignorance, and just generally anti-social behavior.
Yep, we had a license to have children. Then people that thought they knew better tore it to pieces, set it on fire, then pissed on the ashes.