The 26 year old nurse in TX has probably already had her policy cancelled for a pre-existing condition
Ah, good old "probably". A sure indicator that the poster hasn't bothered to actually research what he's claiming, but rather is just making something up that would support his pet conspiracy theory, if it were true.
The cost of mining and burning coal is basically the same, and there's nothing new in wind-turbine technology to make it more effective.
While there may not be any dramatic breakthroughs, wind-turbine technology is become more cost-effective through good old economies-of-scale: bigger turbines, and larger production runs.
There's no new rush for wind-generating operations because there's nothing new to "phase in".
The new thing to phase in would be economical wind-turbines (as opposed to the smaller, more expensive-per-watt turbines of previous decades). And arguably, it's happening now (at least in places where conditions are favorable to wind)
So who wants to bet against the powers that be choosing to increase military spending rather than spend a fraction as much actually breaking our addiction to fossil fuels? Anybody? Aww, come on, I've got all this money just burning a hole in my pocket, I'll give you good odds..
I've got $50 that says they will break their oil addiction, at some point. (of course, that point may be only when there's no more oil remaining to be extracted...
Power companies may or may not be dumb (YMMV), but like any large institution that manages expensive infrastructure, they are slow to react.
It's not like the day after wind power becomes cheaper than coal power a million windmills will spring up. More likely the power companies will operate their coal plants until it's not longer economical to do so (or until they are forced to stop, whichever comes first) and gradually phase in renewable power instead of building/upgrading their existing coal infrastructure.
i.e. Just because it would be cheaper for them to build windmills now than to build a coal plant now, doesn't mean it would be cheaper for them to build windmills now than to keep using the coal plant they already paid for.
Because, you know, without pollution fewer people would get sick and die.
There, fixed that for you.
Of course coal is cheaper when so much of the cost is hidden in externalities.
Any predictions on when renewables will be cheaper than coal even when coal's externalities are not factored in?
(No snark intended; I'm interested because if/when that happens, the case for renewables becomes much easier to make, as the motivation is no longer group-interest but self-interest: by continuing to burn coal, electricity producers would be literally throwing money away)
What should really happen is Mr. Rossi should patent his device, and then anyone who wants to can read the patent and build their own replica, if they wish to do so. (Of course to sell their replica they would need to license the design from Mr. Rossi, since it would be patented)
Until the technology has actually matured there's no safe solution.
Even if SnapChat worked 100% as advertised, it wouldn't be a safe solution, since your recipient could always take a photo of the image using another camera or phone. It's the DRM problem all over again, except now the "publisher" is some teenager rather than the movie industry.
Seems legit
And the head of the CDC is like any other elected official.
Except for, you know, not being elected.
I don't think you understand what this generator is doing. It extends the range of the car. The exact opposite of your complaint.
Sorry, I wasn't clear. Of course it extends the range when you're running the generator. The rest of the time, however, it reduces the range, because you're pulling additional weight and adding additional drag.
So yes, overall the range is extended, just not by as much as you might think -- and not, in most automaker's opinions, enough to make it worth the hassle.
3D isn't hard.
3D that doesn't make people nauseous is hard.
Give us model E, the 40 K sedan. The rich people have paid enough money and you have built the credibility. Continuing to make play things too expensive for the masses is not how you are going to have long term impact or create disruptive technologies.
The Model 3 (nee model E) will only only be cheap if Tesla can get cheap batteries to power it. Tesla's plan for getting cheap batteries is to produce them at huge scale in their GigaFactory (tm). Therefore, don't hold your breath for cheap Teslas until after the GigaFactory (tm) is complete and functioning.
So there has to be something more to this idea because it hasn't happened yet. What am I missing here?
It's not a bad idea, and the TZero had a trailer like that as an option.
I think it's not done more often because it's not that practical: in particular, dragging a heavy trailer around is awkward and reduces your car's range, and a generator powerful enough to recharge your car sufficiently while it drives is going to be fairly large/heavy. Factor in the additional cost, and most manufacturers figure the cheaper and simpler approach is just to keep the car light and maximize its range that way.
I see how this is a good deal for Amazon, not so much how it's fair for the competitors or good for the human race.
Dunno about whether it's fair to the competitors or not, but having robots do pick-and-place is good for the human race -- pick-and-place is a terrible job for a human to have to do. 8+ hours of RSI-inducing mindless tedium every day? No thanks. Let the robots do it and have the humans do something meaningful.
"If it ain't broke, don't fix it." - Bert Lantz
