Comment Re:This could actually be good news (Score 1) 411
Make that 2030 and you're on the right track.
Make that 2030 and you're on the right track.
You may want to look at numbers - how long it takes to build nukes, how much that needs in terms of money/resources, availability of uranium, amount of fossil fuel needed to mine uranium etc.
I didn't claim that it can't fix anything but it won't save the economy when fossil fuel depletion hits in earnest.
You may want to watch the movie "Dirty Wars." It's very questionable who terrorizes whom.
So one niche product by one supplier that isn't exactly loved means recreating the market now?
First of all, Peak Uranium is predicted in around 20 years at current consumption with current technology. Of course you're free to invoke fairy tales about thorium or uranium from seawater. Those exist just as much as fusion exists.
Secondly, even if we magically had all nuclear electric power generation tomorrow it wouldn't fix anything because you can't run trucks, ships or planes on batteries, or replace the entire stock of cars in less than about two decades.
Mod parent up. Same here - the immigrants' English is better than the natives'. Oh and math and Science too.
Nuclear won't help either. Even if we started to build nukes like there's no tomorrow (not that we can afford it) it wouldn't fix anything. The energy trap has closed. 40 years ago was the time to act.
Oh noes! That would make driving more expensive! Can't have that - I'd rather wait until my McMansion in the 'burbs is way underwater and I can't afford to drive any more. Detroit, here I come! Until then, happy motoring! Oh and James Howard Kunstler doesn't exist.
"Nuke it from orbit" was my first thought too.
But seriously, you'll need a lot of explosives to knock out a wildfire. Unless you detect it right after it ignited, it'll be at least acres in size and everything will be ready to re-ignite so you have to blow it out all at once.
That would be good since Intel's CPUs are only getting 10% faster each generation.
Costs: the idea is that this would cost less than building normal solar pannels AND roads; Moreover, they would also replace the need for powerlines as they are inteded to be part of the distrubtion system. Thus price for new developments shouldn't be an issue.
Repair: Most road damage is due to heavy trucking and utilitys digging them up. The solar roads are designed to withstand and excess 250,000 pounds, and the pannels are modular, which means they can be removed and replaced if digging benigh them is required
Wear: there won't be snow plows going across them as they will have a heating element built in, loss of transparancy is currently thought to have a maximum reduction on output of only 9%, see repair (above) for more questions about durablity. Line Display: netherlands failure: used glow
Bravo. I wish I had mod points. Running an OS off a USB stick is not exactly novel - it's been done for years. I can remember my first experiments with Knoppix and a persistent home directory, maybe 5 or 6 years ago.
The one thing that's novel is exploting this idea to make money.
Nonsense. Code does routing and floor planning, it doesn't design two-core modules.
Oh and in the current designs the automatic layout saved significant real estate and power compared to hand layouts.
The article you refer to is utter bullshit.
Gee, Toto, I don't think we're in Kansas anymore.