Again, a properly designed heat pump is still many times more efficient even in very cold conditions than just resistors. Many use a working fluid that means they don't work well at freezing at below. But there are more expensive models that work fine in such conditions.
Facebook started out by being only available to students attending a few select schools..
Yea, but you just lied about what school you went too. Both me and my Daughter did that, since no Austrian schools where first on the list;). However i got sick of the slowness and the constant lameness of facebook and deleted my account. Which was much harder than faking which school you came from.
7M in each of these fields wouldn't make much difference. Since well they already get a lot, or already work so well. Sometimes its not a question of money.
Only problem is that there is about 3 good locations for tidal in the world (yes i exaggerate a little). All would involve significant habitat change/removal and all would be massive engineering projects costs 10s of billions for not a lot of electricity compared to costs.
This is not true*. A 1-5GW *average* solar plant would need much more area than the equivalent hydro facility. (* I am wrong by a factor >10, see below)
Lets run the numbers.
Lets assume that the sun shines at midday summer brightness for 8 hours a day (the average would be *much* less). Or about 800W/m2. Most places it is less than this. So 1 GW would need a area of 1.25 million m2, or about 125 ha (just over 1x1 km) if there is zero free space. But that is just for 8 hours. So if we can store massive amounts of electricity in the same place (not bloody likely), then we need something just 3x bigger, or 375ha (almost 2x2 km). So lets assume with things like shadowing etc its 2x what we have here... still only 750ha, or 7.5 km2.
The Alicurá Dam reservoir has an area of 67.5 km2 or about 6750ha. So i was totally wrong. Solar is more "dense".
But you need to *build* all 750ha of these solar panels/mirrors, while a reservoir kinda makes itself. Also if the energy storage is via pumped water, then you still have a reservoir for that. And lets not forget location location......
You would need a capacitor the size of the US just for NY. Capacitors have crappy energy dentistry and are very expensive. I need some 2kJ of 10kV+ caps and that is going to cost thousands. 1kWh is 3.6 MJ, or more that 1000 times more energy--so try millions for 1kWh. Low voltage super caps are cheaper per unit energy, but are sill very poor compared to even just lead acid batteries. And batteries are still way to expensive for solar/wind load management.
Also it should be pointed out that we don't have the same track record for climate as we do for weather (how many 5 days forecasts do you get to check in a year, how many 100 year forecasts?). So we only think our models are OK, we don't know for sure (fitting things to the past is *not* the same as predicting the future when you have so many "knobs" in your model). We won't know for some time. Also much of the prediction for 100 years time is more of a new thing, following the rise of massive amounts of computational power.
I should also say i have no problem with simplified models or sub models. It is what we do in physics all the time. However its not clear yet which parts can be simplified or are not so important.
Climate simulation is the same thing but much simpler..
I don't know why/. has this piece of truthieness. But its wrong. Climate vers weather modeling is *different*, not easier. For example both fields use ensembles of simulations. In fact for climate models simplified weather models are used for *tractability* reasons. It is a big complex set of PDE with many many variables, to claim that it is easier that weather prediction is to be quite clueless about the models. Both fields/models overlap quite a bit.
I know this is old but anyway. 100TB is not even going to cover 1 week of the LHC with a estimated 15 Petabytes per year. The ATLAS detector along can create over 23 petabytes per second of raw data. Clearly even with today's HDD and computers you must do some on the fly processing to reduce that to manageable levels. But it is still a class of its own in terms of data by orders of magnitude. The American university that are involved with processing the data have dedicated links IIRC, since a standard internet connection is just not going to cut from a time/cost point of view.
There is no requirement in Astronomy either as far as i know. We didn't publish a lot of our data, but it was available on request . But like in particle physics, colleagues expect it. A lot of data does not make it to the "public domain", but that is often more a issue of the time and money it costs to do so. This is true for every field and it was a lot more expensive 50 years ago which is why it something that has really only started to happen (lets face it, you didn't make a entire copy of plates from your telescope at every request).. Especially in particle physics where the data volumes are huge even compared to Astronomy standards.
Don't get me wrong i think the data should be made public as a requirement for publication in one form or another. However also working with big datasets myself i realize this is far from free or easy or fast even with today's technology. And modern collider data is a little on the crazy side in both volumes and what is needed to process it. Basically everyone who can use the data can pretty much get it.
What do you mean in a bookstore. You get it on public bill boards and full size posters at bus stops right next to a primary school. Its just not a big deal here.
Well mostly not. There is talk of restricting the min distance of brothels to schools. Since the few that are right next to schools are causing a little discomfort. But it not really a heated debate, more like perhaps its a good idea.
Lots of Astronomy data is held by the "collection group" for a year or so to allow dibs on publication. ie all Hubble data is like this and all the big telescopes are like this (VLT etc). Particle physics is not that different. There is a embargo period IIRC and then its opened up.
It is hard to get funding if you don't get papers out. You won't get the papers out if you spend all the hard work of making the data available rather than analyzing it.
How long do you think we are going to be using energy? My bet is a bit longer than 100 more years. Also we don't need a breakthrough for fusion. In the last 40 years there has been more than a 6 orders of magnitude improvement in confinement. Another order of magnitude more, and even DD fusion looks good.
We are in this for the long haul. A 20 year R&D program is not a big deal. 5 consecutive 20 year R&D programs aren't either.
Almost all the drag is air friction on these trains. About half of that air friction is from the wheel bogies. So loosing them will save you a bit. I follows that the things that contribute most to the air friction also contribute most to the noise, so you get a saving there.
However friends that have gone on the maglev in china said its is *not* quiet.
Also you can reduce friction by going slower. Going 70% the original speed will halve the air friction. Again it follows that this is also quieter.
My point in the first paragraph is that even the people that believe in the worst of the medias exaggerations of AGW don't and won't do anything. Just like the smokers with lung cancer...
Slashdot Mirror
Again, a properly designed heat pump is still many times more efficient even in very cold conditions than just resistors. Many use a working fluid that means they don't work well at freezing at below. But there are more expensive models that work fine in such conditions.
It depends on the fluid used and the design. There are cold designs that work well in freezing conditions. They do cost more however.
Facebook started out by being only available to students attending a few select schools..
Yea, but you just lied about what school you went too. Both me and my Daughter did that, since no Austrian schools where first on the list ;). However i got sick of the slowness and the constant lameness of facebook and deleted my account. Which was much harder than faking which school you came from.
This is the "You can't come technique". http://www.southparkstudios.com/full-episodes/s05e06-cartmanland
7M in each of these fields wouldn't make much difference. Since well they already get a lot, or already work so well. Sometimes its not a question of money.
Smoke. What about plain old smoke. Now a smoke grenade is real cover.
Only problem is that there is about 3 good locations for tidal in the world (yes i exaggerate a little). All would involve significant habitat change/removal and all would be massive engineering projects costs 10s of billions for not a lot of electricity compared to costs.
20MW? That is a toy. You would need more than 50 of them to be equivalent to just a average coal plant (assuming 1GW).
This is not true*. A 1-5GW *average* solar plant would need much more area than the equivalent hydro facility. (* I am wrong by a factor >10, see below)
......
Lets run the numbers.
Lets assume that the sun shines at midday summer brightness for 8 hours a day (the average would be *much* less). Or about 800W/m2. Most places it is less than this. So 1 GW would need a area of 1.25 million m2, or about 125 ha (just over 1x1 km) if there is zero free space. But that is just for 8 hours. So if we can store massive amounts of electricity in the same place (not bloody likely), then we need something just 3x bigger, or 375ha (almost 2x2 km). So lets assume with things like shadowing etc its 2x what we have here... still only 750ha, or 7.5 km2.
The Alicurá Dam reservoir has an area of 67.5 km2 or about 6750ha. So i was totally wrong. Solar is more "dense".
But you need to *build* all 750ha of these solar panels/mirrors, while a reservoir kinda makes itself. Also if the energy storage is via pumped water, then you still have a reservoir for that. And lets not forget location location
You would need a capacitor the size of the US just for NY. Capacitors have crappy energy dentistry and are very expensive. I need some 2kJ of 10kV+ caps and that is going to cost thousands. 1kWh is 3.6 MJ, or more that 1000 times more energy--so try millions for 1kWh. Low voltage super caps are cheaper per unit energy, but are sill very poor compared to even just lead acid batteries. And batteries are still way to expensive for solar/wind load management.
Both new nuclear and coal can be load following. Nuclear more so. Just because 40 year old designs couldn't doesn't mean they can't.
Also it should be pointed out that we don't have the same track record for climate as we do for weather (how many 5 days forecasts do you get to check in a year, how many 100 year forecasts?). So we only think our models are OK, we don't know for sure (fitting things to the past is *not* the same as predicting the future when you have so many "knobs" in your model). We won't know for some time. Also much of the prediction for 100 years time is more of a new thing, following the rise of massive amounts of computational power.
I should also say i have no problem with simplified models or sub models. It is what we do in physics all the time. However its not clear yet which parts can be simplified or are not so important.
Climate simulation is the same thing but much simpler..
I don't know why /. has this piece of truthieness. But its wrong. Climate vers weather modeling is *different*, not easier. For example both fields use ensembles of simulations. In fact for climate models simplified weather models are used for *tractability* reasons. It is a big complex set of PDE with many many variables, to claim that it is easier that weather prediction is to be quite clueless about the models. Both fields/models overlap quite a bit.
I know this is old but anyway. 100TB is not even going to cover 1 week of the LHC with a estimated 15 Petabytes per year. The ATLAS detector along can create over 23 petabytes per second of raw data. Clearly even with today's HDD and computers you must do some on the fly processing to reduce that to manageable levels. But it is still a class of its own in terms of data by orders of magnitude. The American university that are involved with processing the data have dedicated links IIRC, since a standard internet connection is just not going to cut from a time/cost point of view.
Sudo, make me a sandwich.
You are not a valid user in the sudoers. This incident will be reported.
There is no requirement in Astronomy either as far as i know. We didn't publish a lot of our data, but it was available on request . But like in particle physics, colleagues expect it. A lot of data does not make it to the "public domain", but that is often more a issue of the time and money it costs to do so. This is true for every field and it was a lot more expensive 50 years ago which is why it something that has really only started to happen (lets face it, you didn't make a entire copy of plates from your telescope at every request).. Especially in particle physics where the data volumes are huge even compared to Astronomy standards.
Don't get me wrong i think the data should be made public as a requirement for publication in one form or another. However also working with big datasets myself i realize this is far from free or easy or fast even with today's technology. And modern collider data is a little on the crazy side in both volumes and what is needed to process it. Basically everyone who can use the data can pretty much get it.
What do you mean in a bookstore. You get it on public bill boards and full size posters at bus stops right next to a primary school. Its just not a big deal here.
Well mostly not. There is talk of restricting the min distance of brothels to schools. Since the few that are right next to schools are causing a little discomfort. But it not really a heated debate, more like perhaps its a good idea.
Our librarian would make us leave the adult section and then tell my mum. It was a royal PITA having an Aunty as the librarian. ;)
I many countries you absolutely must register it. Its like the due diligence part of making sure your not using someone else trademark.
Lots of Astronomy data is held by the "collection group" for a year or so to allow dibs on publication. ie all Hubble data is like this and all the big telescopes are like this (VLT etc). Particle physics is not that different. There is a embargo period IIRC and then its opened up.
It is hard to get funding if you don't get papers out. You won't get the papers out if you spend all the hard work of making the data available rather than analyzing it.
How long do you think we are going to be using energy? My bet is a bit longer than 100 more years. Also we don't need a breakthrough for fusion. In the last 40 years there has been more than a 6 orders of magnitude improvement in confinement. Another order of magnitude more, and even DD fusion looks good.
We are in this for the long haul. A 20 year R&D program is not a big deal. 5 consecutive 20 year R&D programs aren't either.
Almost all the drag is air friction on these trains. About half of that air friction is from the wheel bogies. So loosing them will save you a bit. I follows that the things that contribute most to the air friction also contribute most to the noise, so you get a saving there.
However friends that have gone on the maglev in china said its is *not* quiet.
Also you can reduce friction by going slower. Going 70% the original speed will halve the air friction. Again it follows that this is also quieter.
I do quite a bit dipshit.
My point in the first paragraph is that even the people that believe in the worst of the medias exaggerations of AGW don't and won't do anything. Just like the smokers with lung cancer...
Either way, a manned mission and colony is really the path for us to take.
Why?