This was the deal for me. Reading about the 3D stuff I might need to go back, but when I went in for the procedure I ended up being declined because the risk to my night vision was too high.
You'd end up with servers welded to the rack.
Then you're not using big enough racks!
More seriously, it's one of the reasons I suggested 600V. I'm surprised you didn't pick up on that part. I wasn't suggesting running 12V through the racks, I was suggesting running 600 VDC. Which, of course, creates it's own issues. Such as a certain amount of theft prevention, but increases turnover in techs.
For a 1% power loss over 1 metre at 700A, you need 0000AWG cable. It's about 1kg of copper (that's a single conductor, you'd need one for the return path, another kg and another 1% power loss)
Bah, just use the chassis as return; the frames might only be steel, but there's a good amount of it. That and I suggest 600V for truly limiting the amount of power lost through cables.
At least your opinion is backed up by facts and reasoning, unlike the AC's.
Fact: Humans today, on the whole, live better lives than they ever have before.
Brighter colors and whiter whites is only a small fraction of what makes our quality of life so much better. For example, modern medical care has prevented far more death, retardation, and disabilities than modern industry has created short of the sheer population increases it's enabled.
(Pretty pointless to have a 1mSv/year limit when you have had a population of millions living in twice that for a couple of millennium without any measurable problems.)
Indeed, this is even measurable. 1mSv/year is average, if variations caused significant differences in cancer rates you'd expect it to readily show in in areas like Colorado vs Mississippi.
This is a fallacy. The threshold should be set on the estimated benefits of a higher threshold vs the estimated harm from the additional radiation. The background radiation has nothing to with it.
Bingo. Consider that the likely alternatives if you kill nuclear power are coal and natural gas. Realistically speaking you'd have to consider the harm from coal pollution for every kWh burned, which I'd easily say is going to be more. Natural Gas is far cleaner, but still has some pollution issues even without considering global warming. With this in mind, loosening nuclear power restrictions can actually save lives if you use it as an opportunity to prevent more coal or NG plants.
but the panels need to be replaced after about a decade.
You're using very old information. Current generation solar panels are guaranteed to produce 80% of original power after 25 years. The original 'modern' panel is still working 60 years later, and there are lots of evidence they last at least 30.
Though I agree on the nuclear power. I'd be building at least 300 new reactors if I could. It's just that in my original post I was saying that using solar electricity to pull CO2 out of the atmosphere is stupid, especially at those efficiencies. Note that I said 'Even in'; I didn't mean to say that it was the most efficient option.
And yes, synthetic hydrocarbons produced from nuclear power would be a welcome alternative, though I still hold hope for algae based biodiesel/fuel*.
*You can get oil and diesel out of the fats, ethanol or gasoline equivalent out of the carbohydrates.
So basically you're saying that now is the perfect time to be doing this research so that it can possibly reach useful levels by the time fossil fuels have been largely phased out within some jurisdictions?
Depends. I don't mind research, indeed I love it. But research isn't magic; there's a definite 'law of reducing returns' out there in general, especially when we're playing with energy. There are huge numbers of vastly different ways to reduce or sequester CO2.
As for the wolves, very interesting article. I don't think it'll work everywhere, but we can duplicate at least some of it.
Indeed. For the foreseeable future you'll reduce CO2 more by using the panels to displace coal power and even Natural Gas. Only after you've shut ALL of them down and still need to reduce CO2 does this make sense.
Even in ~20 years we'd be better off doing something like use all the retiring EV batteries* to help stabilize the grid and shift solar power to the 7-9 pm peak.
*10 years for EVs to actually reach significant market penetration, 10 years more before people start replacing the batteries in them.
Huh, never heard that. Any citation on Musk saying that?
Tesla's existing cars are actually reasonably priced for their luxury/performance envelope.
As Google expands beyond Web search and seeks a foothold in the automotive market, the company's eagerness has begun to reek of arrogance to some in Detroit, who see danger as well as promise in Silicon Valley.
Danger to their present business models, you mean.
Personally, I think that Tesla would be an excellent company to talk with. Elon Musk speaks their language.
Which would be odd, seeing as how in US parlance 'fridge magnet' does indeed mean a magnet intended to attach to your fridge, typically containing advertising or cute sayings, or holding things like sheets of your kid's art up.
Per wiki a typical fridge magnet is 5 mt, or
This thing is 10X as strong as most of my 'fridge' magnets, but then I like to play with neodymium ones.
Going by my experience, their 'fridge magnets' would hold to a fridge very well without requiring excessive strength to pull off. Most of mine you have to think about it a bit.
Oh, and 16T is enough to levitate a frog.
But the logical extreme of modern-day Libertarianism is Anarchism.
Slippery slope fallacy. That I support having *limited* government does not mean that I support *NO* government.
Someone might be seeking damages or criminal penalties for what was done before the AP was switched off.
Then, like a coffee shop you provide what information you have about those who connected, and move on.
For example: for the first year after purchasing your first handgun, that's the single most likely cause of death in your life, approaching almost 50% of deaths.
Wouldn't that be the cart leading the horse? If you're committing suicide with a gun in 'under a year' my first thought is that there's a very good chance you bought the gun specifically contemplating suicide.
The suicide problem is huge, and we're not actually losing all that many young adults to anything else. Disease is down, car fatalities are down, other accidental deaths are down, etc...
I feel like it would be extraordinarily intellectually dishonest of me to accept handguns as public health issue, and not alcohol. They are both serious concerns and need to be acknowledged as they are, not stewed in pots of rhetoric.
I agree. Heck, my proposals of fixing schools and our mental healthcare system would actually address suicide as well as violence and other crimes, so bonus.