Wish that was true here in Southern California. Electricity is about $0.25 kwh, and jet fuel is around $5.50 per gallon. On a kg basis (which is what matters for airplanes - how much energy weight you can carry) they are about the same price. In Germany and Denmark, electricity is even more costly, it's just that taxes on fuel are even higher than we pay, so that the Government penalizes fuel - while charging more for electricity.
It also means it will work for a "commuter" plane with a few - maybe as many as a dozen - passengers. Airports right now are not constrained by the size of the planes coming in, they are constrained by the number of planes coming in. Take a single small jet (like an Embraer 175 with 75 passengers) and break it up into 6 or 7 flights. You now have to have 6 to 7 times the gate capacity, service capacity, etc. Not at all feasible.
LI-Ion/LI Polymer batteries don't have quite the power/weight of conventional fuel,
Not by a long shot. Jet fuel is around 42.8 MJ/kg, and LiPo batteries are around 1.8 MJ/kg. So you need around 24 kg of LiPo batteries to equal the energy in a kilogram of jet fuel. LiIon is even worse, with 0.875 MJ/kg, meaning you need about 50 kg of LiIon to equal a kg of jet fuel.
Petroleum products are insanely energy-dense things, and they allow for extremely quick recovery of all that energy. Most nuclear, and things like diesel, allow for more energy (orders of magnitude in terms of nuclear) density per kg but it is a lot harder to extract the energy quickly - like needed when climbing.
Yep - it's an award that's given to people who promote, or at least espouse, equality and diversity. But it's SO much easier for you to just charge racist, isn't it? Without anything to back it up. So tolerant of you!
Which is why Trump received the Ellis Island Award, alongside fellow winners Rosa Parks and Muhamad Ali, in recognition of his outstanding example of patriotism, tolerance, brotherhood and diversity. But hey, since it was from the "wrong party", he must now be cast a racist. Because the Left is so tolerant and diverse, right?
So you're saying that functioning, producing, selling-power breeders are not ones that have shown how to overcome the technological, economic, and security issues? Really?
I've not found a place that I go to (all over the US) where I don't get a Verizon signal. However, there are several Sprint (and quite a few T-Mobile) holes in the Ventura/Oxnard/Camarillo area. Maybe it's just where I live - but the first issue with cell phone service and "unlimited" offers is to actually CONNECT to a cell phone network. Saving $40 a month is irrelevant if I can't even connect...
Yes, your plan is "unlimited"... But it only works in half the areas of Verizon or AT&T, you're on Edge or 3G connectivity for big chunks, and the 4G speeds are insanely low. But you get all the data you can (when you cannect, that is). My company had Sprint, and when I moved to SoCal (Ventura) I convinced them to let me switch to Verizon because, even though it was more expensive, it actually worked. I could get data and phone service everywhere instead of big dead zones or marginal zones like Sprint...
First things first - be able to at least connect to the network, before complaining about "muh data caps"...
According to the new analysis of satellite data, the Antarctic ice sheet showed a net gain of 112 billion tons of ice a year from 1992 to 2001. That net gain slowed to 82 billion tons of ice per year between 2003 and 2008
Every year, from 1992 to 2008, Antarctica added 82 to 112 billion tons of ice. They are completely at odds with each other.
Intent means nothing about violating the law. You use a personal e-mail server for official Government business? That's illegal. Now, intent may shade what kind of punishment you receive - but you still violated the law.
They pulled a Comey and wrote the summary before the report was released. After all, if it's good enough for Comey's investigation of Hillary Clinton's illegal use of a home e-mail server, it's good enough for All The News That's Fit To Print!
Apple is just 7% of the PC market; are you seriously claiming the problem is Intel cannot supply the volumes that Apple needs? They already do - and that volume is a drop in the bucket of the PC market. Intel can provide all the chips Apple wants - Apple has to want them, though.
Apple could easily use Intel chips if they were willing to do it. 92%+ of the PC market is Windows and Intel, Apple is the small 7% of the market. Market's "mass quantities needed" are actually quite small compared to Lenovo, HP, and Dell... This is about Apple making the Mac platform an "oh yeah, we have those things too!" priority. It's iOS, iOS, iOS and then... Oh yeah, OSX I guess.
Nature claims it lost ice every year from 1994 to 2008. NASA says no, it accumulated ice every year from 1994 to 2008. Which one is right? Answer that first before you go any further, please - because the path you take will be DRAMATICALLY different based upon who is correct.
The Nature article claims losses every year over that 1992 to 2008 period, and NASA says "nope". So for the 1992 to 2008 period, who do you believe? If you believe NASA, then automatically you need to take the Nature article's conclusions for time periods outside that range with a huge grain of salt. If you believe the Nature article, then why do they disagree so extremely with NASA?
As Mark Knopfler so eloquently wrote "Two men say they're Jesus one of them must be wrong". Well - we have two groups saying diametrically opposed things for the same period - one of them MUST be wrong. The question is - which one, or is it both?
I know for me, tolerance ranges of 110% of nominal value lead me to cast a VERY skeptical eye on the Nature article. How good is their data when they have such a high range to start with, especially when we're talking about values that are on the order of 0.01% of the measured total mass in the first place (the total mass of ice in Antarctica is about 10,000 times that of what they are estimating). When your estimate has such a huge tolerance window, and it is for an extremely tiny amount of the whole - what does that tell you about the overall confidence of the estimate?
It's like your bank telling you that your account is draining at a massive rate, because it should be $10,000 and they believe it is now $9,999, give or take $1.10. I personally would question them about how they can have such a wide window in the first place before I consider any caution they offer me about the rate of change...
Slashdot Mirror
Wish that was true here in Southern California. Electricity is about $0.25 kwh, and jet fuel is around $5.50 per gallon. On a kg basis (which is what matters for airplanes - how much energy weight you can carry) they are about the same price. In Germany and Denmark, electricity is even more costly, it's just that taxes on fuel are even higher than we pay, so that the Government penalizes fuel - while charging more for electricity.
It also means it will work for a "commuter" plane with a few - maybe as many as a dozen - passengers. Airports right now are not constrained by the size of the planes coming in, they are constrained by the number of planes coming in. Take a single small jet (like an Embraer 175 with 75 passengers) and break it up into 6 or 7 flights. You now have to have 6 to 7 times the gate capacity, service capacity, etc. Not at all feasible.
LI-Ion/LI Polymer batteries don't have quite the power/weight of conventional fuel,
Not by a long shot. Jet fuel is around 42.8 MJ/kg, and LiPo batteries are around 1.8 MJ/kg. So you need around 24 kg of LiPo batteries to equal the energy in a kilogram of jet fuel. LiIon is even worse, with 0.875 MJ/kg, meaning you need about 50 kg of LiIon to equal a kg of jet fuel.
Petroleum products are insanely energy-dense things, and they allow for extremely quick recovery of all that energy. Most nuclear, and things like diesel, allow for more energy (orders of magnitude in terms of nuclear) density per kg but it is a lot harder to extract the energy quickly - like needed when climbing.
So basically - you have nothing. Just a feeling and a belief. Got it!
What is racist about what President Trump has said?
No, it was Smeagol, and he was obsessed with a ring...
Yep - it's an award that's given to people who promote, or at least espouse, equality and diversity. But it's SO much easier for you to just charge racist, isn't it? Without anything to back it up. So tolerant of you!
Which is why Trump received the Ellis Island Award, alongside fellow winners Rosa Parks and Muhamad Ali, in recognition of his outstanding example of patriotism, tolerance, brotherhood and diversity. But hey, since it was from the "wrong party", he must now be cast a racist. Because the Left is so tolerant and diverse, right?
Because they romanticize the old Democrat South and wish Grand Kleagle Robert "Sheets" Byrd had successfully run for President...
With regards to any issues with the 2016 campaign, yes.
If it is by profit, then pretty much all wind and solar sources would also be a failure...
So you're saying that functioning, producing, selling-power breeders are not ones that have shown how to overcome the technological, economic, and security issues? Really?
Well, other than the Superphenix in France and the PFBR in India that's cranking up this year...
I guess that's why some of them are listed as commercial (meaning making power for sale) and are still operating?
I guess these breeder reactors. do not exist?
I've not found a place that I go to (all over the US) where I don't get a Verizon signal. However, there are several Sprint (and quite a few T-Mobile) holes in the Ventura/Oxnard/Camarillo area. Maybe it's just where I live - but the first issue with cell phone service and "unlimited" offers is to actually CONNECT to a cell phone network. Saving $40 a month is irrelevant if I can't even connect...
Cite the statute please - and show where it requires intent to be enforced. She broke her own State department rules. And in fact she violated her own dictates in using her private server and illegally handling classified, secret, and top secret communications.
Yes, your plan is "unlimited"... But it only works in half the areas of Verizon or AT&T, you're on Edge or 3G connectivity for big chunks, and the 4G speeds are insanely low. But you get all the data you can (when you cannect, that is). My company had Sprint, and when I moved to SoCal (Ventura) I convinced them to let me switch to Verizon because, even though it was more expensive, it actually worked. I could get data and phone service everywhere instead of big dead zones or marginal zones like Sprint...
First things first - be able to at least connect to the network, before complaining about "muh data caps"...
According to the new analysis of satellite data, the Antarctic ice sheet showed a net gain of 112 billion tons of ice a year from 1992 to 2001. That net gain slowed to 82 billion tons of ice per year between 2003 and 2008
Every year, from 1992 to 2008, Antarctica added 82 to 112 billion tons of ice. They are completely at odds with each other.
Intent means nothing about violating the law. You use a personal e-mail server for official Government business? That's illegal. Now, intent may shade what kind of punishment you receive - but you still violated the law.
They pulled a Comey and wrote the summary before the report was released. After all, if it's good enough for Comey's investigation of Hillary Clinton's illegal use of a home e-mail server, it's good enough for All The News That's Fit To Print!
Apple is just 7% of the PC market; are you seriously claiming the problem is Intel cannot supply the volumes that Apple needs? They already do - and that volume is a drop in the bucket of the PC market. Intel can provide all the chips Apple wants - Apple has to want them, though.
Apple could easily use Intel chips if they were willing to do it. 92%+ of the PC market is Windows and Intel, Apple is the small 7% of the market. Market's "mass quantities needed" are actually quite small compared to Lenovo, HP, and Dell... This is about Apple making the Mac platform an "oh yeah, we have those things too!" priority. It's iOS, iOS, iOS and then... Oh yeah, OSX I guess.
Nature claims it lost ice every year from 1994 to 2008. NASA says no, it accumulated ice every year from 1994 to 2008. Which one is right? Answer that first before you go any further, please - because the path you take will be DRAMATICALLY different based upon who is correct.
The Nature article claims losses every year over that 1992 to 2008 period, and NASA says "nope". So for the 1992 to 2008 period, who do you believe? If you believe NASA, then automatically you need to take the Nature article's conclusions for time periods outside that range with a huge grain of salt. If you believe the Nature article, then why do they disagree so extremely with NASA?
As Mark Knopfler so eloquently wrote "Two men say they're Jesus one of them must be wrong". Well - we have two groups saying diametrically opposed things for the same period - one of them MUST be wrong. The question is - which one, or is it both?
I know for me, tolerance ranges of 110% of nominal value lead me to cast a VERY skeptical eye on the Nature article. How good is their data when they have such a high range to start with, especially when we're talking about values that are on the order of 0.01% of the measured total mass in the first place (the total mass of ice in Antarctica is about 10,000 times that of what they are estimating). When your estimate has such a huge tolerance window, and it is for an extremely tiny amount of the whole - what does that tell you about the overall confidence of the estimate?
It's like your bank telling you that your account is draining at a massive rate, because it should be $10,000 and they believe it is now $9,999, give or take $1.10. I personally would question them about how they can have such a wide window in the first place before I consider any caution they offer me about the rate of change...