Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment Re:For the survival of our economy... (Score 1) 110

Why should autonomous ownership be incentivized towards solo owner/operators ? (And to clarify - this is an honest question, not an attack or rhetorical question) It seems like it would be most efficient for big companies to own many trucks, that way the overhead is minimized and cost of trucking is minimized. As long as there is some competition (e.g. some number of large autonomous trucking operators, probably > 3) this seems much more efficient than 100,000s or millions of solo owner operators? Certainly there is a question of what the former human truckers should do, and a societal advantage to not just letting so many become unemployed all at once without any thought to a less disruptive transition, but it seems a bit 'broken window' theory to subsidize an inefficient system?

Comment Re:Silly Scam, CO2= 0.04% in air, 14% plant exhaus (Score 1) 64

So I went and read about it, and my assumptions seem validated - the energy required to remove CO2 from air (0.045% or 450 ppm concentration) is 500-800 kJ/mol CO2 vs from stack exhaust (12% = 120,000 ppm concentration) 115-140 kJ/mol CO2. Best case it takes 3.5 times more energy, worst case, 7 times more energy, to remove CO2 from air.
Read more:
https://www.pnas.org/content/1...

Projected energy and dollar costs of air capture processes that have appeared in recently published technical analyses. The projected dollar costs are in the range of $100–$200/tCO2—although the energy requirements vary widely, with most of those for NaOH scrubbing/lime causticization systems clustering around 500–800 kJ primary energy/mol CO2. By contrast, a larger body of work has focused on systems to capture and purify CO2 from coal-fired power plant flue gases, where the CO2 concentration is approximately 12% by volume (“flue-gas capture”), approximately 300-fold higher than air. Estimates of avoided cost for flue-gas capture using current-generation capture and compression technologies are in the range of $50–$100/tCO2 (15). The most developed flue-gas-capture solvents currently used for absorbing CO2 from industrial gas streams are aqueous solutions of amines (16), particularly monoethanolamine. The primary energy required to strip CO2 from the rich amine stream (115–140 kJ/mol CO2; ref. 13) dominates the energy requirements of the process. The driving question of our study is how the energetics and costs will scale with input CO2 concentration ranging from those found in air capture systems to those found in flue-gas-capture systems.

...In all of these analyses, it is clear that the cost to separate a given substance from a mixture scales inversely with the initial concentration of that substance...

Our empirical analysis of energetic and capital costs of existing, mature, gas separation systems indicates that air capture processes will be significantly more expensive than mitigation technologies aimed at decarbonizing the electricity sector. Unless a technological breakthrough that departs from humankind’s accumulated experience with dilute gas separation can be shown to “break” the Sherwood plot and the second-law efficiency plot—and the burden of proof for such a process will lie with the inventor—direct air capture is unlikely to be cost competitive with CO2 capture at power plants and other large point sources.

Our assessment indicates that air capture will cost on the order of $1,000/t of CO2. Through 2050, it is likely that CO2 emissions can be mitigated for costs not exceeding about $300/t of CO2 (33). However, at some point in time, air capture conceivably could be a useful tool to mitigate emissions from distributed sources, and may even be deployed to reduce atmospheric concentrations of CO2 below current concentrations. Air capture for negative net CO2 emissions would follow the decarbonization of our electricity system and other large anthropogenic point sources and assumes abundant and inexpensive non-carbon energy sources.

Comment Re:Silly Scam, CO2= 0.04% in air, 14% plant exhaus (Score 1) 64

I am a chemical engineer, work in this space, and I question direct air capture of CO2 for this very reason. As long as there are higher concentration sources of CO2 that are not being captured, from a mass transfer driving force basis, it doesn't make sense to do direct air capture from a low concentration source while there are other higher concentration sources available.

Maybe it will make sense in a future where all the high concentration sources have been captured, or maybe currently as a demonstration, but for now on a commercial level, I don't understand it. Possibly the relationship between separation energy required and starting CO2 concentration is not as significant to the overall economics as I assume. I need to read more about it.

Comment I thought SSDs were the future (Score 1) 161

When I first heard of SSDs, there was a small company that most users seemed to really like and the customer service was pretty good, I bought one of their products and liked it. They were really pushing into the SSD space. Thinking that SSDs would catch on, I invested almost 100k into that company. Over time, customer service started to get worse, product quality declined, and eventually it was found out the fucking CEO was cooking the books and fled to Panama (he's currently under SEC investigation). So I lost all that money. Thanks OCZ. Even when 'right' about the technology catching on, regular people can't win in the market.

Comment Re: Flood the net with encrypted garbage noise (Score 1) 367

But that only uses up monitoring time/processing cyxles to decrypt ca videos. throwing in keyphrase like dirty bomb and random names from the top 10 most wanted terrorists would require follow up by real people, and once the volume of followup work was overwhelmingly large (not enough TLA analysts to keep up with it all), the entire effort would be pointless.

Comment Flood the net with encrypted garbage noise (Score 1) 367

Someone should make an app that generates long messages of random terror-keywords and then spam these messages as email around to other users with the same app, some unencrypted, encrypting some of it with weak encryption, and some with strong encryption. This will make the signal to noise ratio too low for the government to effectively monitor electronic communications.

Comment need a scoring method to reward great, not good (Score 1) 180

Ratings and reviews of all sorts favor things with broad appeal, but those aren't necessarily the 'best'. I would love a rating method that points out the 'love it or hate it' place that has a bunch of 10/10 reviews but an average of 5/10 because half the people hate it. I may hate it too, but there's a chance I love it, and love it more than the 8/10 place that everyone really likes but no one says, oh wow, that changed my life.

Comment Google Insurance (Score 2) 465

One argument against driverless cars I often hear is that it will never happen because the liability is too great - ie. if someone ran over a baby in a Google car, Google would get sued into oblivion. I think the obvious answer to this is that Google would insure all of it's cars. There is no doubt that driverless cars will be safer, so google could require that to use their driverless car you must have insurance through Google, at comparable rates to other insurance companies. Since Googles car's will be involved in far fewer accidents, the consumer will be paying the same, but Google will be paying out less, so for the odd freak accident, the higher payout due to 'oh nohs teh ebil Google killed my babby!' will be covered because of the lower rate of accidents.

Comment Google should insure all driverless cars (Score 1) 273

A lot of the resistance to the idea of automated vehicles is 'who is responsible if there is an accident'. If one ever does get in an incident, especially the first couple of times, I expect the payouts to be higher than for an equivalent human-caused incident. I think it is easy to measure the safety performance of driverless cars, and I expect that it is better than regular drivers, and will improve. That means that insurance for driverless cars should be cheaper than for human drivers. So Google should offer to insure all their driverless vehicles, and because those vehicles are safer, they will come out ahead.
Image

Slashdot's Disagree Mail 167

I get a lot of mail from obviously unbalanced people. Enough in fact, that I've often wondered if there was a institution that allowed their patients to only read Slashdot. We've even had a few visits from some questionable individuals. A man who tried to bribe me with a car if I let him "reverse engineer" Rob Malda's Life comes to mind. He insisted on Rob being present for the process and couldn't explain to me what it entailed, so I suggested he leave. The personal visits are rare, however, compared to the amount of mail I get. Here are a few of my favorites; let's hope these people have started to take their medication. Read below and don't be worried if you don't understand all of it.

Slashdot Top Deals

And it should be the law: If you use the word `paradigm' without knowing what the dictionary says it means, you go to jail. No exceptions. -- David Jones

Working...