> The Japanese have found a way to use small temperature differences to generate electricity

And for about $50 I can buy an engine that runs off the temperature difference between the ambient air and a cup of hot water. The idea of using thermal gradients in the ocean to generate power is at least 150 years old. Any guesses why it's not caught on?

Hint: the facility in Japan you're probably thinking of only generates 100kw (~135HP), and it's not clear if that's before or after they account for the power to pump the seawater.

There is no utility in chasing down such incredibly low quality thermal energy unless you happen to actually want heat, but even then it's not really hot enough for most things you'd want scavenged heat for.
=Smidge=

Though, you might think, there's a reason we don't count votes that were not cast. Ignoring the reality that the Electoral College actually elected the President/Vice President, the popular vote isn't decisive. It's interesting, yes. Participation in the US is not nearly as high as I would like, but I can't get a good read on what world change if participation increased, say, 30%. Consequently, it's easy to believe most complaints about participation and the popular vote are the stuff of Democrat angst. Yet I'm not at all certain that increased participation would favor one party more than the other. Polls on this topic aren't any more reliable than any others.

"1st, no illegal aliens voted."

You, it appears, have access to evidence not available to others. I am in awe.

"

> Is there no way to do it for data centers?

The water temps are typically barely warm enough for most people's preference for a shower.

> For example, use a heat pump to concentrate the heat to above boiling temperature then use that to boil water to run a steam turbine.

Getting a heat pump to operate at atmospheric boiling water temps is extremely difficult. Remember that to have a working heat pump, you need a refrigerant medium that condenses at the high temperature side under a given pressure and also boils at or below the low temperature side at a given pressure... then, you need to build a machine that can actually create those pressures.

Now consider that most steam cycle powerplants use superheated steam at temps of over 500C. What material could you use that can be made to condense into a liquid at >500C, what kinds of pressures would be required to make that happen, and what could you even build such a machine out of to survive those conditions?

> I think you could run that at a net-positive for power?

The second law of thermodynamics has left you a voicemail...
=Smidge=

I can find no record of a US president gaining 2/3 of the popular vote, other than George Washington. In fact, in modern times, Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon each got 61 or 60% of the vote. You're asking for something that's never been. What's your point?

Yes, this.

I just got to my second Starbucks this morning on my e-bike. I use it to go to the gym, *bux, etc., usually 3 mile trips each way. It's ok, though I do risk harm with cars thinking I've usurped their space in the bike lane.

I take advantage of that to leave my Prius in the driveway, which Prius I bought to conserve on fuel use and downsize the vehicle a little.

Not because I'm noble. but because I do not need more. And focusing on need, not want, is not noble either. It's just responsible. I've never bought a new car, I've made straightforward repairs on the used cars I've driven over 50 years, mostly to avoid depreciation and the wasteful expense.

But I also do not begrudge anyone making different choices. There are much worse things going on than driving cars too much.

Ditto. :)

You could not be more wrong. But you're deluded, and convinced, so my response is actually not directed at you.

Really, you are wrong. You get cause and effect reversed in this instance.

"propagandists will start to focus on information that will make their decision..."

FTFY. There are no innocent propagandists, just those you agree with and those you do not.

"a lot of people who voted for Obama didn't turn out at all for Clinton."

Oh dear, the 'none of the above' choice in action. Huh...

You are telling that to a GOP member who specifically canvassed their neighborhood, EVERY Republican first, then EVERY Democrat, to vote. Yes, I offered recommendations, but I canvassed every single household and encouraged them to vote.

Your assumption about the GOP is no longer valid, if it ever was. You misstate the truth, and you ought to know it. Examples such as voter identification laws, etc., are not intended to suppress voting, but to suppress illegal voting. And you can rail on all you want, it matters not to me. I've believed all this since the 11th grade, and understanding constitutional government. Go ahead, read our minds, but you're wrong.

ps - I'm having a hard time understanding your claim, 'fear monger to get fewer (usually white racists) people to vote.'. It doesn't make sense at first. Elaborate?

Australia's example is instructive.

Consider if pollsters could compel you to respond to their polls. Don't focus on how, just try on the hypothetical.

So, as an unwilling participant in the poll, how would this imposition affect your answers? Bear in mind, you are no longer anonymous, they have to know if you responded, so they know everyone responded...

- Random answers, just to get rid of this intrusion?
- Deliberate nonsensical answers, to poison the poll and hope that this makes it stop, braking the system of forced participation?
- Did the choices include 'none of the above'? If so, choose them, and the poll gets very little of value from you, hopefully to exclude you some day thank you very much, breaking the system of forced participation.
- Oppositional answers, to taint the poll and when it is proven so unreliable, enhancing the possibility that they will stop including you. Breaking the system of forced participation.

Did Australia consider that choosing to not participate in voting is tolerable, of is their form of government one where they can force you to at least show up and say 'I'm not interested'? Because the US is not Australia, and we can choose to vote or not. That is a fundamental liberty I have no reason to abandon. The consequences may be unfortunate, but that is not and never was the point.

Offering a 'none of the above' choice on ballots, to me, is unnecessary and potentially misleading. I know that, personally, when I am faced with only choices I find flawed on a ballot, I do end up choosing the lesser of the 'evils'. Not because I wholeheartedly endorse them, but I choose anything but the ones I cannot accept, o the ones that are decidedly less tolerable. If I decided all were equally intolerable, I would be shallow and off the mark. One or another, choose. Or do not participate.

I'm part of an organization that had a debate on electing officers - that ballots should include not merely choosing 'yes' for a candidate, or no choice for another, or abstaining, but a 'no' for a candidate. Thankfully we did not adopt that proposal. If the only candidate is someone you do not want to vote for, abstention is the only viable choice. You may not like them, but if only one of you voted yes, and all others abstained, that one chose. You did not. A recall or removal is a different thing than an election. The election ballot ought to serve to select, the rejection being the rsult of the selection. Not the other way around.

Plain old socialism doesn't seem to work too badly, but it fails so often when the leaders turn it into communism, and most do. Scandinavian countries are doing a pretty good job. Job. But that's not really the left, is it? The fos comments are just ad hominem attacks again, aren't they? Of course some people are full of it, but I have history on my side. And don't forget, it was the Nazis who defunded the police so that they could do what they wanted to do. More left. Naziism is not right Wing no matter how they try to tell you differently.