You are both correct. The poster you are replying to was talking about HOME USE - the power draw of a home is fairly linear through the day and night.

You are talking about OVERALL energy use - for example factories, office buildings, stores, restaurants - that include lots of places that tend to use power primarily during the day.

Not that it's hear nor there, but another headache with EVs for the rental car places is that EVs break their procedures. Some customers rent cars with full tanks and return them empty. They just do. Now what do you do with a bunch of EVs all returned with empty batteries? You can charge the customers money for refueling the cars, but that doesn't get juice back into the EV batteries. Maybe you install a few EV charging stations at the rental place - maybe you have the power available for that - but when you have a couple of dozen cars that are empty? A real headache. And you can't rent them out again without full batteries.

12.5kWh is all you need. You charge them up during the day, spend the charge on them at night. Stay grid tied. The grid takes care of multiple cloudy days in a row. You may have some small amount of reserve for outages, but not much.

Electricity bill is minimal, but still there. Totally off grid is way too expensive today. 95% off-grid? That's the ticket.

95 for $25K, 100 for $120K? No contest.

Thanks Sique - super informative. Makes more sense to me now, but I see a logic error in the naming (which may be why it was confusing before). A Major is called just a Major since he is above the Captains (like the Lt: "without any specification is the deputy of a captain", the Major, without any specification is above the Captains). OK. That's fine.

But the Major General is misnamed in that case - he is above the Colonels, but below the Generals. Should he not be called a Major Colonel then, and not a Major General? Or is the lessor Major misnamed, and should be called the Major Colonel? This seems like a logic flaw.

To carry it further, if we adopt the Major Colonel, then a Major General should be above the Generals, like the lessor Major is above the Captains.

This does not seem so easy.

I would have thought 'Trump dementia' would just return the text from any one of his speeches.

And to be fair, a much bigger percentage of energy expended (by the 22 meter gun) is going into the mach-20 impact than you would get with super high powered lasers that have an efficiency rating of less than 1%.

You have to input a lot of energy to get a fusion reaction going. Making up for the loss of 99%+ of the energy going into lasers makes for a pretty steep hill to climb just to get back to break-even power. Kinetic energy may indeed be a more efficient way to transfer startup energy.

And I'm sure they got it *MOSTLY* right.

So tell us - are you pushing your specs / requirements back on them? As in - OK, you can use 3 million gallons per day, but it must remain potable, to our standards, so when it comes out of your datacenter it is just warmer (so they need a closed loop inside and heat exchangers for instance). As long as they are not "consuming" the water they use, I say let them have what they need.

Then that town of 10,000 still gets the water they need, just a little warmer.

Please tell us the water industry is at least doing that.

I trust him.

Hope it works out buddy!

They are already talking about liquid to liquid volume: "liquid hydrogen has a density of 8 MJ/L whereas gasoline has a density of 32 MJ/L". With hydrogen gas, you are likely in the range of 10-20 times as much volume.

Hint: See subject line.

"I wrote a terrible essay for 3 scholarships to community college and got one of them. I found out it was because I was the only applicant."

I wouldn't feel too bad about that - how do you think Trump "wins" most of his golf tournaments? 8-D

NASA also has been the only one to blow up a female astronaut on launch. Also in the 1980's.

Damn straight! This does not get emphasized enough: We can fix *90%* of the coming deficit in Social Security with one stroke of a pen by eliminating the contribution cap.

Let that sink in - 90% of the problem goes away just like that. I personally hit the contribution cap every year (probably a lot of us on Slashdot do), and I am all for eliminating the cap. It's a pittance at the end of the year that I really wouldn't miss if it wasn't there. And it fixes the majority of the problem.

WHY WAS THIS NOT DONE A DECADE AGO? WHY IS IT NOT DONE RIGHT NOW?

It's worse than that - from how I see it, it was all very deliberate, and somewhat clever.

1) How will the market response if we suddenly suspend the tariffs for 90 days?

2) Let's find out - create a 'rumor' that that has happened, and retract it a few hours later.

3) Boom! Stock market goes straight up. Make notes as to what parts went up the most.

4) Let everything settle back down again.

5) We need a 'trigger' - something that tells us when to start buying beforehand. The Trump post is perfect for that. Not too subtle, but provides some kind of plausible excuse for doing the pre-buying. And even a plausible excuse for *what* to buy based on what the market did when the rumor came out.

6) A few hours after the trigger, make the official announcement and the market is off to the races.

7) Solid grift. No way Trump came up with this on his own either. Everyone knows you did it, and see it being done. But can any of it be proved? And like you pointed out, is there anyone left to try and prove it too?

Which is generally OK, as long as you use enough masking tape.