I've seen many examples of ICE vehicles catching fire. It is absolutely not true that they are "electrical systems of the cars catching fire." ICE cars catching fire are simply so commonplace that they don't even make the papers, unless some celebrity like Jay Leno is burned.
https://normantaylor.com/blog/...
https://thedailyautomotive.com...
They could just not run that AI. I wonder if that has dawned on any of them.
Not running a malicious AI doesn't do anything to protect YOU.
You are at risk from OTHER people running a malicious AI.
--thanks for the correction, by the way.
Yes, I think you're right -- when I do the calculation with your numbers, I get the same result.
I'm too lazy to go through my calculation and see what I did wrong, but probably somewhere in the conversion from units of BTU-hours and tons of ice to kilojoules and seconds.
Interesting calculation. I think the efficiency loss in trying to cool all the way down to ice is probably not worth the benefit of a lower amount of water used.
Water heat capacity is about 4.2 kJ/kg per degree, so if we cool the water, say, ten degrees (C), for 4 kW of cooling for 12 hours we'd need about 4 tons of water (*). Seems like a lot, but water is cheap, and the tank would be a cylinder
Ice would be better; the lower temperature would make heat transfer faster. On the other hand, you could circulate the cooled water in the same loop as baseboard hot-water heating, so in some ways it's simpler.
--
*(unless I screwed up the calculation, which is easily possible.)
Ah, this again. Are you being paid by oil companies, who want to do anything possible to stop electrical vehicles?
No. The main pollution is not tire particulates, and electric cars are not particularly harder on tires than any American SUV. There turn out to be incentives to making cars larger and heavier. Eliminating these incentives would help, but (spoiler alert) it's not electric cars that are the problem.
(TFA): "By storing electricity when prices are low and renewables are abundant, and discharging it when demand rises, batteries can help reduce consumer power bills, decarbonize electricity use and reduce strain on the grid. That makes them especially useful on hot summer days when consumers blast their air conditioners."
They got that all screwed up... prices are low at night when renewables are definitely not abundant... demand is highest during the day when prices are high _and_ renewables are abundant.
No, it's partly right. Air conditioning loads tend to peak in the late afternoon, when solar power is still available (but not at its peak), but have another peak when people get home from work, which continues on into the evening and loads typically only drop below average around midnight, when solar is not abundant. Look up "duck curve"> .
This could, in principle, be easily solved-- air conditioners could easily store coolness. Water has a high heat capacity, and you could cool water during the solar peak, and use it to cool your living area in the afternoon. Water has low watt-hours per kilogram, but for residential or commercial use, that's not a big deal. But most of the US doesn't have time-dependent electricity rates, so there's no reason for consumers to want this.
They got that all screwed up... prices are low at night when renewables are definitely not abundant...
Absolutely right, if by "renewables" you mean "solar". If we did have time dependent electrical rates, the cheap power is midnight to 6AM, not the solar peak at all.
But this may change as more and more solar gets emplaced.
If only there was some way to process these flammable batteries in a way that their components could be reused again for batteries, like some sort of cycle that goes again and again, a "recycle" if you will.
The problem is that there aren't enough of the little appliance-size batteries to economically recycle, but there are enough that sometimes they cause fire.
Why not just give out a container for people to put waste batteries/battery containing devices in?
How many batteries per week do you think people in Britain discard?
If they find water it will certainly put them at the forefront of moon science.
We already know that there is water in permanently shadowed craters near the lunar poles. This has been well-proven by multiple missions, including the LCROSS mission that actually impacted the pole.
What we don't know is what the physical state is. Sheets of ice? Ice-coated grains of regolith? Deeply hydrated minerals? Fluffy snow? Layers of dust alternating with rock-like layers of minerals cemented together with cryogenic ice?
You're not paying me to be your research assistant. So far I've given four links-- you have given none-- and for three of them you explained why you're not going to read them, and one you simply ignored. Since you show not even a casual interest in the links I already gave, I see no reason to spend any of my time giving you more links to ignore.
The one you ignored is this one:
For a more scholarly summary, here a paper from the American Geophysical Union: https://agupubs.onlinelibrary....
As for
P.S. Calling me "an idiot" or "denier" is not going to work
Yes, I've noticed that deniers don't like being called deniers.
I'll add that the greenhouse effect is the tool we use to understand the temperatures of ALL planets with atmospheres (and one moon), not just Earth.
(In fact, I can say that I have personally measured the infrared downwelling from the atmosphere on Mars (using the mini-Thermal Emission Spectrometer on the Mars Exploration Rovers).)
And I'll even help!
Please, sift through your massive documents yourself
Yes, I've noticed that climate deniers are highly allergic to reading actual science, and in particular will do anything at all to avoid looking at IPCC reports, so I'm not surprised that you want me to read the reports and summarize them for you, so you can argue with me instead of actually learning anything.
to cite a couple of "precise, non-trivial and impactful" predictions. I assume, you've read the documents you're offering as evidence yourself, so it wouldn't be much of a burden for you. Thank you!
In fact, as a hobby I've been keeping a graph of the predictions based on the Manabe and Wetherald model (1967, the first greenhouse effect model using detailed CO2 infrared spectra and incorporating convection and radiation), as well as the National Academies of Sciences 1979 report, and comparing them to measurements. So far they've been tracking remarkably well. I'd post the graphs, but slashdot doesn't have that capability. However, here's an article from Forbes that does the same comparison: https://www.forbes.com/sites/s...
For a more scholarly summary, here a paper from the American Geophysical Union: https://agupubs.onlinelibrary....
Now, how about a successful prediction? Something reasonably precise, non-trivial and impactful, please — falsifiable, yet not falsified in due time... If you choose to play, be sure, each citation includes two links: one to the prediction being made, and another — to it coming true within at least 20% of the predicted value (for the quantifiable ones). Crucially, the two links must be at least 5 years apart...
And I'll even help! You can find the predictions in the IPCC assessment reports, all of which are easily available on the web. Here's the very first one, 1990:
The scientific basis: https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar1...
The impact assessment: https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar1...
The rise of Alzheimer's disease in the late 20th century, at least in the U.S., coincided with the highest standard of living ever achieved by humans.
It also coincides with an improved definition of Alzheimer's, and more effective detection and diagnosis.
Research is to see what everybody else has seen, and think what nobody else has thought.
