you'd need a facility with a total volume of 18,600,000 m^3
No, you'd need to process that much air. The facility could be much smaller, but you'd need to move so much air through it you'd be expending much more energy moving the air than you'd get back from the methanol.
Even if you contain all the air in the one facility, you won't be using 18 million cubic meters of water and catalyst, so you still have to move the air.
But it is a beautiful thought experiment to think about such a CO2 to methanol recovery device on the output of the burner of a hot air balloon. Maybe you could make enough methanol from it that you could replace the tank of propane and burn only methanol. And with thermal electric generation, you could install wireless networking in the balloon and have permanent access points in the sky...
Trust me, it makes no sense... I can guarantee you that it takes a lot more energy input than you can get out of the methanol.
Every energy storage process takes more energy to store it than you get back out. I don't think getting energy back out of the methanol is the goal. Using it for other industrial processes that require methanol would be more useful.
but if you wan to produce methanol, just produce it the normal ways.
This method can be used on the output of current industrial processes that produce carbon dioxide and prevent it from being released in the first place. It's less efficient to loose the dragon and then hope a tree eats him than to just keep the dragon in the dungeon to start with.
e-ink is hugely expensive. This saves them a ton of money. but don't turn it on negative contrast or you'll be replacing toner cartridges like mad.
Doofus. e-ink doesn't use toner, it uses ink. You don't put toner carts into your ink-jet printer, do you?
Turning on negative can cause the e-ink to leak out of the e-book and get all over your hands. Impossible to wash off. And don't get me started on the damage that running an e-ink device through the washing machine with a load of whites can cause.
E-ink is expensive because it is a dead-end technology. There are so many more uses for LCD displays that volume drives prices down. e-ink works for e-book readers, that's about all. You can read your e-books on a full-function tablet device, so why buy something locked to one vendor? (Yes, I know that e-ink is very good for reading things so e-book readers have a niche.)
The article mentions 6mbps, that isn't fast enough to support many modern and common household internet usages
Like what? It's enough for TV-quality streaming video,
No, this must be one of the few times where they actually mean 6 MILLI-bits per second (mbps) and not 6 MEGA-bits per second (Mbps). Six mbps means you get one character every, umm, 27 minutes. Six Mbps would be fast enough for streaming all kinds of things.
I don't get hives, my response to the allergen is to have a palsy. This, of course, creates a positive feedback loop -- until I explode.
Yes, much like Kenny, those bastards with jackhammers kill me every time. Good thing I'm a time lord.
What compels you to keep it?
1. Once it gets over the fact that Momma isn't going to respond to it, it does work as a switch.
2. It has a healthy PoE capability, which is the only reason I bought it instead of another HP managed switch.
"Cloud only hardware". Must remember this phrase, really sums up the current trend.
Yeah. I just bought a Cisco MS220 switch. I get thirty days of free access to the cloud web management to set it up, then I'm supposed to pay for a license on a yearly basis. The local management options are limited, including the wonderful fact that it will not change it's interface from 126.96.36.199 to the IP address I configure it for, nor will it stop reporting details of my internal network to Cisco unless I block it at the router. Which I did.
It's a damn switch -- a piece of hardware. Why does Cisco think they need to know how many other hosts are on my network and on which ports they appear?
I'm pretty sure that I was not equating death to comedy.
Uhh, yeah, when you created the situation where the person talking about comedy was now talking about killing people, you did.
You said the street was designed for multi-ton vehicles, I corrected you, the street was designed for horses, and adapted for multi-ton vehicles.
"Adapted" requires design. They didn't just pour a layer of concrete over the horsepath and call it good. There are people who get paid to do this stuff and they don't let it get done without their input.
But I get it, you're one of those assholes who think that ruining someone else's neighborhood for your convenience is okay.
You're one of those assholes who will put words in other people's mouths when you cannot browbeat them into agreeing with you. I did not say anything about ruining someone else's neighborhood and you know it. Other people have the right to use public streets no matter how much you don't like it, and the taxpayers who paid for that street have the right to object to deliberate degradation of the street just to force people to drive below the speed limit.
Streets are neither designed nor intended for children to play in. They are designed (yes, even when a horse path is converted to a street) for cars. Cars and children do not mix. Those streets are also not designed for "block parties".
So, if you think that keeping children from playing in the street or having a "block party" somewhere besides in the middle of a road is "destroying" a neighborhood, then you are one of those self-entitled assholes who thinks that public facilities belong to you instead of the public as a whole.
There, I insulted you using the same terms you thought were appropriate to apply to me because I disagree with you. Wasn't that fun and productive? How about suppressing your urge to resort to such insults next time? Oh, how dare I suggest that.
Many people would consider it odd if your response to people killing other people was: well if you don't like killing people,
I believe this is called "moral equivalency" and it is a logical fallacy. To equate making a joke that might be offensive with what some people consider murder is patently absurd, and patently offensive.
The remainder of your moral equivalence examples involving death and murder, ignored.
Since never. You're still allowed to offend people,
Unless you are scheduled to speak on a college campus and the local vocal potential offendees get your talk cancelled because you might say something they don't like.
College students tend to be inexperienced stubborn idiots. That means they're trying to find their place in the world, and the way an inexperienced idiot would do that is to try to change the world.
You don't change the world by prohibiting parts of it you don't like from speaking where you might hear it. It becomes the task of the experienced non-idiots who run colleges to prevent the inexperienced idiots from squelching speech they don't like, not for them to kowtow to the inexperienced idiots and bend to their every whim.
10.0 times 0.1 is hardly ever 1.0.