Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×

Comment Re:We should be studying this now (Score 1) 105

An obvious one is small scale experiments on oceanic plants, possibly engineered, that could sequester carbon dioxide. For example, the ideal plant would be a carbon-fixing plant that has relatively small iron and phosphorus needs and sinks once it dies. You could drop a lot of carbon into the bottom of the ocean fast with a plant like that. And if it's a huge monoculture, then eventually something will figure out how to eat it.

Comment Re:queue the.. (Score 1) 250

I remember supporting an office with win95 and Access. I had tech support conversations that almost went like this:

Him: My computer just crashed.

Me: So what did you do then?

Him: I rebooted it.

Me: Well there's your problem. Reboot the computer again. Then tap the computer gently and pray to the god of your choice and reboot a third time...

Him: ...Thanks. That worked.

Comment Re:What's the point ? (Score 1) 76

Certainly it's preferable to 'Rich people sitting on their wealth'.

The amazing thing about Elon Musk is that when he was a student he actually lived on $1/day for a while. He said that knowing he could live on so little was quite freeing, enabling him to take more risks.

I really don't think of him as your typical billionaire.

Comment Re:What's the point ? (Score 1) 76

Can anyone explain why Jeff Bezos is doing the same thing that SpaceX is already doing ?

To lower cost to orbit .. check To design re-usable first stages ... check

The only difference I see is that they want to use LOX/LH for first stage. And even then, they plan to go to LOX/LMethane after that.

Of course, competition is always nice to have.

Yeah, the only difference is that Bezos founded Blue Origin in 2000, two years before Space X was founded, and only just now launched his first rocket. Bezos sounds like the Justin Hammer of the commercial space industry.

Comment Re:No, it won't (Score 1) 105

The problem here is that there are obvious problems with monkeying around with the world's energy infrastructure. So this is a standard engineering approach to see if we can preserve that energy infrastructure without incurring huge risks. Right now, it does appear that doing nothing is a better choice than 80% reduction in CO2 emissions.

Comment Re:Geo-engineering is intrinsically riskier (Score 3, Insightful) 105

At least with carbon reduction we're attempting to reverse climate changes through a mechanism believed to trigger those changes. However, with new intervention mechanisms that aren't fully understood, I don't trust anybody's model of what they think will happen.

I'll buy that. But I think it's worth noting here that all of our choices are geoengineering choices, including emission reduction and doing nothing. I find it a dubious argument to heavily favor one approach and then rule out a whole category of other strategies on the basis that we don't know enough to implement them. That should be a warning that we don't know enough to implement any of them.

Also there's some low-lying geoengineering fruit such as albedo changes in urban environments in hot locations which is a considerable part of the world, reforestation, and putting out large coal bed fires.

Comment Re:2kW isn't enough power for a home (Score 1) 514

Why purchase it in the first place if I still have to rely on the grid? Seems like a waste of money unless it is strictly for backup purposes only. And even then, it won't run what is needed like electric heat or A/C unless you purchase multiple units. Then natural gas and propane generators would be much more cost effective.

You purchase it so that you can store grid electrical energy while the rates are low overnight, and use it when rates are high during peak hours.

Slashdot Top Deals

An Ada exception is when a routine gets in trouble and says 'Beam me up, Scotty'.

Working...