I confess to being stupid but endeavor to learn. Your blind spot seems to be the assumption that in equilibrium the radiation from an object must re-emit the same energy per Hz as acquired from the absorption spectrum. Classical thermodynamics, while powerful, leads to an incomplete picture. Statistical thermodynamics says the incoming energy is rapidly randomized among probable states (fortunately for life some of those may start the electron transport chain). The excess energy populates an increasing number of available states until enough of them dissipate (or in vacuum radiate) the excess energy away. Which has very little connection with some hypothetical temperature of the incoming radiation.
In thermal equilibrium with the environment, not with each other. An object absorbing more high frequency radiation has to get hotter to radiate that energy at the lower frequencies. Thus any measurable temperature is a property of the object, not the radiation field. You could define the temperature of vacuum as that of a gray body in equilibrium with the local radiation if that makes you happy. Not sure how useful such a definition would be.
A thermometer coating with high absorption for solar wavelengths and low emissivity at longer wavelengths would get hotter than one with the opposite characteristic when placed near the Sun. Indeed you could run a heat engine off this temperature difference and as you say it would ultimately be powered by the continuing incident radiation. But the vacuum environment has no inherent temperature of its own, rather a radiation flux which can heat different objects to different temperatures even when both are in thermal equilibrium.
If you enclose a vacuum in a black box with walls at 1 kelvin what is the temperature of the vacuum? If you heat one wall to 5000 kelvin what is the temperature of the vacuum? Is there a gradient? Does it become anisotropic and depend on the orientation of the thermometer?
But in that case the thermometer is measuring its own temperature, not "the temperature of the vacuum", whatever that means. And selective coatings with different absorption and emission spectra could change the reading of the thermometer. Does that change the "temperature of the vacuum"?
Under SI convention units are always lower case and the abbreviation is capitalized only when the unit derives from a personal name.
So 1 watt = 1 joule/second or 1 W = 1 J/s
Metric prefixes mega and larger are abbreviated upper case, kilo and smaller lower case. MWh, kWh
And now Congress is considering legislation to assure that furloughed workers get back pay for the vacation.
Watch closely and you will discover they explode several times from multiple angles.
The 1930s technocracy movement outlined a society without money, thinking that it and "The Price System" inevitably lead to overconsumption and collapse. They suggested replacing it with energy chits equally distributed among the population, valid for one year to prevent debt accumulation.
Lyndon Johnson started the shenanigans with his "unified budget" that included trust funds not subject to budgetary legislation, and over the years Congress used the concept for further obfuscation (such as pinning automatic budget cuts to the unified budget rather than the actual budget).
I have no idea what the current situation is, but the SS trust funds were officially off-budget as of 2005 according to http://www.ssa.gov/history/BudgetTreatment.html
"present law mandates that the two Social Security Trust Funds, and the operations of the Postal Service, are formally considered to be "off-budget" and no longer part of the unified federal budget."
Much of that analysis might be applied to the photon, as a purely mathematical construct to explain the quantized transfer of action between two events having (by definition) no separation in space-time. However electrons are affected by the intervening space even when there is no interaction, e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aharonov-Bohm_effect
Big industry was behind both making both alcohol and MJ illegal. Competition from alcohol and hemp products threatened to constrain the profits of Standard Oil, DuPont, and General Motors. Prohibition was allowed to end after Ford was forced to stopped making engines that could use ethanol blends.
Interesting history here http://www.starchiefpress.com/articles/article35.html.
An impoundment does result in a surprising increasing of evaporative loss compared to the free-river run. So a nominally non-consumptive water use such as hydroelectric generation or river cooling of the condenser can involve considerable fresh water loss, usually only important to downstream consumers.
Cooling towers are by definition totally consumptive and are also comparatively expensive so they are mostly used for nuclear plants which make steam at a much lower temperature than coal plants. Thus the small reduction in enthalpy at the top of a cooling tower translates into a couple per cent increase in thermodynamic efficiency and a significant ~5 increase in profit.
Nuclear plants *could* be run at a much higher temperature, but only the French have the guts to do that
My page loads have slowed to a crawl!
That's all that has to be demonstrated for a new drug, at least in the US. Not that it is more effective than a previous drug, only that it is safe and more effective than a placebo. So a new version of an old drug might replace a phosphate group with a sulfate group, and it does not matter if the new drug is less effective than the old one, it can be patented and handed over to the marketing department for another 15 years of cash flow. There are a million variations possible, rinse and repeat as needed to maintain the monopoly and high price.
So swap the passenger compartment onto a new chassis. No special equipment required, drive the chassis into the cab similar to the way tractors pick up front end buckets. If you buy only the cab and rent the chassis then Initial purchase cost would be small. You could switch between long distance, short distance, truck, limo, mini chassis as needed.