You should calm down a bit and educate yourself on wind production stability a bit: http://www.gridwatch.templar.c...
The UK has better than 10GW of installed on-shore and off-shore wind over a geographical area >1000 km across and yet over the latter half of the month of June overall average production was
You trash engineers as too stupid when they tell you this is a serious unresolved problem, but then call on them to find a solution? Have you ever considered the possibility that the grid engineers have a bit more knowledge on the subject than you and so they understand the magnitude of the problems better? Of course not, because they're all in cahoots with "big coal" or whatever anti-corporatist conspiracy theory floats in the blogosphere this week.
Beginning over 30 years ago, activities involving separating americium (Am) from old weapons materials generated a moderate amount of transuranic waste contaminated with americium (Am), plutonium, uranium and minor amounts of other radionuclides, and containing various metal-nitrate salts (strong oxidizers), such as (Mg,Ca)(NO3)2 with minor amounts of Fe, Na and K. When dewatered, these hot evaporator bottoms were poured onto a tray, vacuum dried, flashed crystallized, rinsed with cold water and put in bags, where they sat for 30 years.
It was recommended sometime later that inorganic kitty litter made from silicate minerals be added as a sorbent (widely used in radiochemistry as well as the home litter box), but also to dissipate heat and generally mitigate auto-oxidation reactions of the kind we think occurred in these drums in WIPP. Anhydrous citric acid (a reducer) was used to bring the pH down if over-adjusted.
For reasons perhaps related to good intentions, or merely related to dust generation, the inorganic kitty litter was replaced by organic wheat-based litter early on in the process. There were a few other components of not much import in the drums, but additional organic components just added more fuel.
Some decisions regarding these additives are vague and not attributable to a real chemist.
So it seems it was a case of a well meaning idiot making stupid decisions.
While most of the retardation will be done by air brakes and parachutes, a set of car-like disc brakes still have to haul it down from 160 mph to a standstill on the slippery earth of South Africa's Kaksken Pan. At that speed, the car's steel wheels will still be spinning at 10,000 rpm.
If at 160 mph the wheels are spinning at 10,000 rpm, then it means that the wheel are about 14 cm in diameter, which, looking at the Bloodhound SSC side on (http://www.car-addicts.com/wp-content/gallery/bloodhound_ssc/Bloodhound_SSC_01.jpg) means that the car's body is about 30cm tall. Truly a marvel of miniaturization, including the driver! In related news, motoring journalists still suck at delivering factual information to the public.
The sicence behind Global Warming is so fake
If it's so fake, why do you think it is that the vast majority of climatologists (you know, scientists who actually study the climate) are in agreement that climate change is happening and that it's caused by our actions? A vast global conspiracy across thousands of researchers in hundreds of universities and research institutions with no financial, cultural or organizational commonalities? If you think that, then you've got your tinfoil screwed on a little too tight.
If we REALLY wanted to clean up the environment we would agressive upgrade our energy production facilities like we do with our PC's.
Fully agree, but it's a little more difficult than with computers - large scale industrial processes aren't so easily modified due to the complexities and the expense involved, not to mention the physical difficulties in achieving quantum leaps in technology other than semiconductors. Here's a hint: you're not the smartest person on the planet, so you can rest assured that other, smarter people have already thought about. Why do you think things aren't moving along as quickly as you think them possible, despite smarter people being on the forefront of them? Do you think it's possible that these much smarter people see a little deeper than you into these areas and have good reasons why they don't think it's as easy?
Thorium Nuclear power would be a good place to start.
Thorium is great, but it's still got tons of unresolved issues. Reactor designs need to be developed, certified and tested. The reprocessing and refueling chemistry is still largely theoretical and untested. These are not minor issues, but large projects that will take years, if not decades to resolve and perfect.
What's chemical fusion? Chemistry deals with molecules and electron-electron interactions.
Low Energy Fusion would be another nice place to start.
Would be, albeit nobody has found a way to demonstrate it. LENR and "cold fusion" are scams.
We have tons of energy solutions for personal cars/transport and mass transit. We are refusing to do these things because it disrupts the power structures, all of them political.
Like which ones? Hydrogen fuel cells? LiOn batteries? All of those have serious scaling, performance and cost issues (though BEVs are slowly improving).
There world seems to be stuck in a rule by Oligarchs
Ok, un-tighten your tinfoil hat again. Learn about the physics in these areas first - these are NOT easy problems.
[Elon Musk] is a narcissistic douche
You mean the guy who spent all of his $150 mil goldmine out of the PayPal acquisition on starting two very risky businesses with high probability of failure - a revolutionary rocket and car business - that actually advanced the state of the art in both fields and influenced the way the public views technological advancement for the better. You call *that* guy a "narcissistic douche"? My response.
# zfs set dedup=on mypool/photos
Make sure you have enough RAM though (1GB of RAM per TB of unique data) and/or an SSD for L2ARC to make sure it doesn't grind to a halt.
* the average price of a 16kW solar PV rig will be around $72480
* 1/10 of that will buy you around 1812 gallons of gas (at $4/gallon)
* a good, fuel-efficient gasoline car with around 50 mpg will drive approximately 90600 miles on that
* at the average of 15000 miles driven per year this will last you around 6 years
* 72 months is easily above the average amount of time that owners hold on to cars (somewhere around 60 months)
Oh and lest we forget, during the day, when your solar rig is producing the most power, is also when you're most like to be out with your car, i.e. not charging it. This effect will be least problematic during the summer (longest day, lowest energy consumption by car), and most problematic during the winter (highest energy consumption by car, and a day most probably too short to get any sunlight on the panels while the car's in the driveway).