Dude, seriously, you didn't even need to RTFA... the summary would have been more than adequate to answer your question...

True, the Canadian dollar is worth 0.000371$ less than the US dollar. What a significant difference that makes.

So basically, not finding items of historical value is better than finding them and destroying a bit of historically valuable surroundings?

Isn't the worth of historically relevant findings in the knowledge they provide rather than their existence? If that was the case, any dude coming up with this without totally destroying everything around the coins provides a net gain to our understanding of history. I can't help but think that would be better than never finding anything at all (which is very probable).

Also, NOW they know where to go look for another archaeological site, right?

I'd not even call this a social faux-pas. It would be that if he had texted a coworker his wish for her to please him sexually, NOT KNOWING that such a behaviour was inappropriate.

This guy merely clicked a wrong button. I mean, hell, has the judge never hit the wrong button in an elevator? Never dialed the wrong number?

This makes me very sad...

So... good times ahead, then? ;)

D'uh, sorry people, I seem to be not quite all there right now... of course it's not 23.5 km per kWh at all... but the per gallon part should be correct, I hope...

I just googled a random factlet: It says, refining a gallon of gasoline uses between 4 and 7.5kWh.

So a Model S can go 500 km on 85kWh which means it can go 23.5 km per kWh (assuming refining used 'only' 4kWh) and thus per gallon.

As a comparison, a 2 litre Audi A6 gets 28 MPG. that's about 48 km per gallon.

So you might say, hey, the gas engines are actually better! You'd be wrong.

This means that half the electricity a Model S uses, is used anyway by a gas engine! This means, if we switched over to all electric cars, only 50% of the needed electricity would have to be produced on top of what we're doing today, because the other 50% already go into gas production, right now.

Also, if you take the 7.5kWh number, you get a number of 44 km to the gallon for a Model S and that is RIGHT THERE with what an Audi uses. Only without burning even a cup of fossil fuels.

Sure, a Model S is not magically environmentally friendly. These batteries aren't all fairy dust and laughter to recycle, but heck, I thought CO2 was our major problem. Let's solve it.

Instead of stepping up the hydrogen/fuel cell business (which needs two additional conversions of energy), why not just put more effort into better batteries and do away with all that expensive and probably large equipment and put the electricity to work directly?

I really don't get hydrogen proponents...

We need three things from batteries:
- Longer life
- Faster recharge
- More storage

And in a lot of situations, a bit of organizational talent helps to work around some, if not most, of an all electric car's limitations. A Tesla Model S can go almost 500km. How many people do you think will have to go more than 500km in one day on a regular basis?

Sure, we can't replace ALL other vehicles with all electric cars right now, but if we could replace 60%, imagine what that would do to our CO2 budgets. Unless, of course, we've been burning fossil fuels to make electricity.

If I could afford a Model S, I'd by it. But then again, I go to work mostly by bike or motorbike, so my gasoline abuse is rather limited as it is.

You still watch that crap? My condolences. I'd offer you a hug, because you could really use one, I think.

Well, then don't go bragging how your bear can do everything. It obviously can't. That doesn't reflect negatively on your bear as long as you don't give people false expectations.

Oak Ridge ran a thorium reactor for several years.

Also I'd like to point out that you don't make your worldview look any more credible by being rude to those who don't share it.

Unless the wind decides to take a nap right about the moment when the sun tries to burn people to a crisp. You know, the reason you have to turn on air conditioning in the first place, because there's no wind to cool shit down.

Wind power is a nice bonus but I wouldn't rely on it powering anything of importance.

Localized LFTR reactors, on the other hand...

That's why we are talking about LFTR and not the reactor type you are refering to.

The german reactor was more or less a Uranium reactor that ran on Thorium as well. A LFTR runs almost purely on Thorium, needing Urianium only as a starter.

Do NOT mix the two up.

Please make yourself familiar with that concept. Thorium is a fuel. The reactor design is somewhat independent of it.

Uhh, why would you need more than one diaper? If you're going to take the time to change it after its first use, you might just as well have used the toilet.