hate these ads?, log in or register to hide them
Page 92 of 126 FirstFirst ... 428289909192939495102 ... LastLast
Results 1,821 to 1,840 of 2515

Thread: Electricity is scary! [Transportation Thread]

  1. #1821

    Join Date
    April 13, 2011
    Posts
    6,553
    Quote Originally Posted by metacannibal View Post
    With hydrogen extracted from water with renewable solar power and hydrogen powered vehicles.
    How to spot someone with no idea what they're talking about

  2. #1822
    VARRAKK's Avatar
    Join Date
    September 27, 2011
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    5,417
    Solar power is very inefficient for area they take.
    If you truly want lots of green power, you got to go with wind power. Offshore wind power.

    A very small area up around Alaska could supply all of US with electricity.

  3. #1823
    Cosmin's Avatar
    Join Date
    March 14, 2012
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    6,001
    Switching our existing cars to run on hydrogen is p. easily achieved compared to decommissioning them altogether for life size RC cars. However the infrastructure necessary to make it safe and the distribution infrastructure - whole different stories.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    Guns make the news, science doesn't.

  4. #1824

    Join Date
    May 31, 2011
    Posts
    4,087
    Quote Originally Posted by VARRAKK View Post
    Solar power is very inefficient for area they take.
    If you truly want lots of green power, you got to go with wind power. Offshore wind power.

    A very small area up around Alaska could supply all of US with electricity.
    That guy I mentioned had a rather sensible approach. He didn't go "solar/biomass/hydrogen/wind/<whateverelse> power is the solution!oneelven!" Instead he mentioned that his team developed an energy mix for each country of this world, costumed-tailored for that country's circumstances/environment (location/geography etc.).

    The only real hindrance are the exceptional high initial costs, IMHO. But as I mentioned: those will amortize themselves. But more importantly, if one sums up the direct and indirect costs the world already deals with, which are caused by climate change - (prevention for) disasters, refugees etc., we're nearing a zero-sum situation. Just that the later sums are splatter all over various places and are not nicely presented as a bottom line sum in a country's yearly budget or an easy to grasp management summary paragraph.

  5. #1825
    Liare's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 9, 2011
    Location
    Denmark
    Posts
    12,327
    Quote Originally Posted by Hel OWeen View Post
    That guy I mentioned had a rather sensible approach. He didn't go "solar/biomass/hydrogen/wind/<whateverelse> power is the solution!oneelven!" Instead he mentioned that his team developed an energy mix for each country of this world, costumed-tailored for that country's circumstances/environment (location/geography etc.).

    The only real hindrance are the exceptional high initial costs, IMHO. But as I mentioned: those will amortize themselves. But more importantly, if one sums up the direct and indirect costs the world already deals with, which are caused by climate change - (prevention for) disasters, refugees etc., we're nearing a zero-sum situation. Just that the later sums are splatter all over various places and are not nicely presented as a bottom line sum in a country's yearly budget or an easy to grasp management summary paragraph.
    you realize of course it can never ever get funded under our existing economic regime right ?
    Viking, n.:
    1. Daring Scandinavian seafarers, explorers, adventurers, entrepreneurs world-famous for their aggressive, nautical import business, highly leveraged takeovers and blue eyes.
    2. Bloodthirsty sea pirates who ravaged northern Europe beginning in the 9th century.

    Hagar's note: The first definition is much preferred; the second is used only by malcontents, the envious, and disgruntled owners of waterfront property.

  6. #1826

    Join Date
    May 31, 2011
    Posts
    4,087
    Quote Originally Posted by Liare View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Hel OWeen View Post
    That guy I mentioned had a rather sensible approach. He didn't go "solar/biomass/hydrogen/wind/<whateverelse> power is the solution!oneelven!" Instead he mentioned that his team developed an energy mix for each country of this world, costumed-tailored for that country's circumstances/environment (location/geography etc.).

    The only real hindrance are the exceptional high initial costs, IMHO. But as I mentioned: those will amortize themselves. But more importantly, if one sums up the direct and indirect costs the world already deals with, which are caused by climate change - (prevention for) disasters, refugees etc., we're nearing a zero-sum situation. Just that the later sums are splatter all over various places and are not nicely presented as a bottom line sum in a country's yearly budget or an easy to grasp management summary paragraph.
    you realize of course it can never ever get funded under our existing economic regime right ?
    I'm a convinced pessimist, so: of course, I do.

  7. #1827
    Liare's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 9, 2011
    Location
    Denmark
    Posts
    12,327
    Quote Originally Posted by Hel OWeen View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Liare View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Hel OWeen View Post
    That guy I mentioned had a rather sensible approach. He didn't go "solar/biomass/hydrogen/wind/<whateverelse> power is the solution!oneelven!" Instead he mentioned that his team developed an energy mix for each country of this world, costumed-tailored for that country's circumstances/environment (location/geography etc.).

    The only real hindrance are the exceptional high initial costs, IMHO. But as I mentioned: those will amortize themselves. But more importantly, if one sums up the direct and indirect costs the world already deals with, which are caused by climate change - (prevention for) disasters, refugees etc., we're nearing a zero-sum situation. Just that the later sums are splatter all over various places and are not nicely presented as a bottom line sum in a country's yearly budget or an easy to grasp management summary paragraph.
    you realize of course it can never ever get funded under our existing economic regime right ?
    I'm a convinced pessimist, so: of course, I do.
    aright, i just wanted to make sure you hadn't drunk the kool aid or something and started believing we're not completely and utterly fucked.
    Viking, n.:
    1. Daring Scandinavian seafarers, explorers, adventurers, entrepreneurs world-famous for their aggressive, nautical import business, highly leveraged takeovers and blue eyes.
    2. Bloodthirsty sea pirates who ravaged northern Europe beginning in the 9th century.

    Hagar's note: The first definition is much preferred; the second is used only by malcontents, the envious, and disgruntled owners of waterfront property.

  8. #1828
    Cosmin's Avatar
    Join Date
    March 14, 2012
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    6,001
    Quote Originally Posted by Liare View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Hel OWeen View Post
    That guy I mentioned had a rather sensible approach. He didn't go "solar/biomass/hydrogen/wind/<whateverelse> power is the solution!oneelven!" Instead he mentioned that his team developed an energy mix for each country of this world, costumed-tailored for that country's circumstances/environment (location/geography etc.).

    The only real hindrance are the exceptional high initial costs, IMHO. But as I mentioned: those will amortize themselves. But more importantly, if one sums up the direct and indirect costs the world already deals with, which are caused by climate change - (prevention for) disasters, refugees etc., we're nearing a zero-sum situation. Just that the later sums are splatter all over various places and are not nicely presented as a bottom line sum in a country's yearly budget or an easy to grasp management summary paragraph.
    you realize of course it can never ever get funded under our existing economic regime right ?
    Conflict and pain and destruction fuel evolution. I'm p. sure we'll try (again) to obliterate our own species only to emerge on the other side stronger than ever. Unless we're actually successful this time around
    Guns make the news, science doesn't.

  9. #1829

    Join Date
    April 10, 2011
    Posts
    10,033
    Tesla 3 teardown by an engineering firm.

    "A miserable job..."
    "Lawyers will have a field day..."
    "We haven't seen body gaps like this since the 70's..."
    "I can't imagine how they've released this".


  10. #1830
    Cosmin's Avatar
    Join Date
    March 14, 2012
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    6,001
    I'm all for legit teardowns, but these two old crooks sound like grumpy old people grumbling about kids nowadays.


    "I broke my wrist in an accident so I can't open the driver's door with one hand, I need two hands. I hate stuff needing two hands to use".

    I feel sorry for his wife.




    Later edit: boot is too heavy to close, wtf )
    Guns make the news, science doesn't.

  11. #1831
    Duckslayer's Avatar
    Join Date
    October 23, 2017
    Posts
    980
    Im all for electric cars but a car without a set of dials behind the wheel? Gotta look at a screen off to the side to see my speed? Seems an odd design decision.

  12. #1832

    Join Date
    April 9, 2011
    Location
    2006
    Posts
    5,017
    Quote Originally Posted by Cosmin View Post
    I'm all for legit teardowns, but these two old crooks sound like grumpy old people grumbling about kids nowadays.
    Don posted a video of himself?

  13. #1833
    Keckers's Avatar
    Join Date
    July 31, 2012
    Posts
    16,869
    Quote Originally Posted by Cosmin View Post
    I'm all for legit teardowns, but these two old crooks sound like grumpy old people grumbling about kids nowadays.
    Quote Originally Posted by Cosmin View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by jonesbones View Post
    A generation of gamers raised on mobile games and we think a PVE revamp will recapture their attention?
    I think you hit the nail on the head with this one.

    And you know what? It's not that most 20smth people today don't have the time to put in something as complex as EvE, they don't have the willingness to do it, because anything that's more complicated than "point crosshair and press LMB" and their brains BSOD. And I'm not a rose tinted glasses person, but I've had met (too many) early 20 people and spent time with them (too much time imho) and they're vertigo inducing just from all the mental aerobatics they're trying to do and fail to tie up any threads of thought they start. It's mind numbing and the amazing thing is that they have incredibly more information at their fingertips and the brains to process it all but the attention span of houseflies.
    Hmmmmmmm
    Quote Originally Posted by Paul Mason
    It is absurd that we are capable of witnessing a 40,000 year old system of gender oppression begin to dissolve before our eyes yet still see the abolition of a 200 year old economic system as an unrealistic utopia.

  14. #1834
    Liare's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 9, 2011
    Location
    Denmark
    Posts
    12,327
    Quote Originally Posted by Cosmin View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Liare View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Hel OWeen View Post
    That guy I mentioned had a rather sensible approach. He didn't go "solar/biomass/hydrogen/wind/<whateverelse> power is the solution!oneelven!" Instead he mentioned that his team developed an energy mix for each country of this world, costumed-tailored for that country's circumstances/environment (location/geography etc.).

    The only real hindrance are the exceptional high initial costs, IMHO. But as I mentioned: those will amortize themselves. But more importantly, if one sums up the direct and indirect costs the world already deals with, which are caused by climate change - (prevention for) disasters, refugees etc., we're nearing a zero-sum situation. Just that the later sums are splatter all over various places and are not nicely presented as a bottom line sum in a country's yearly budget or an easy to grasp management summary paragraph.
    you realize of course it can never ever get funded under our existing economic regime right ?
    Conflict and pain and destruction fuel evolution. I'm p. sure we'll try (again) to obliterate our own species only to emerge on the other side stronger than ever. Unless we're actually successful this time around
    this is not how reality works, this is how feel-good-clapping-yourself-on-the-shoulder works.

    one of the key problems is that we're not leaving behind enough accessible resources to give it another go if we fall down the technological ladder, yea humanity can survive a lot of things, but it's the resources required to build back up that is the problem.
    Viking, n.:
    1. Daring Scandinavian seafarers, explorers, adventurers, entrepreneurs world-famous for their aggressive, nautical import business, highly leveraged takeovers and blue eyes.
    2. Bloodthirsty sea pirates who ravaged northern Europe beginning in the 9th century.

    Hagar's note: The first definition is much preferred; the second is used only by malcontents, the envious, and disgruntled owners of waterfront property.

  15. #1835
    Smarnca's Avatar
    Join Date
    January 30, 2013
    Location
    SVN
    Posts
    9,055
    Quote Originally Posted by Cosmin View Post
    I'm all for legit teardowns, but these two old crooks sound like grumpy old people grumbling about kids nowadays.


    "I broke my wrist in an accident so I can't open the driver's door with one hand, I need two hands. I hate stuff needing two hands to use".

    I feel sorry for his wife.




    Later edit: boot is too heavy to close, wtf )
    typical fanboy crying

    Careful not head hit on rock!
    laughs in Slovenian

  16. #1836

    Join Date
    May 31, 2011
    Posts
    4,087
    Quote Originally Posted by Cosmin View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Liare View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Hel OWeen View Post
    That guy I mentioned had a rather sensible approach. He didn't go "solar/biomass/hydrogen/wind/<whateverelse> power is the solution!oneelven!" Instead he mentioned that his team developed an energy mix for each country of this world, costumed-tailored for that country's circumstances/environment (location/geography etc.).

    The only real hindrance are the exceptional high initial costs, IMHO. But as I mentioned: those will amortize themselves. But more importantly, if one sums up the direct and indirect costs the world already deals with, which are caused by climate change - (prevention for) disasters, refugees etc., we're nearing a zero-sum situation. Just that the later sums are splatter all over various places and are not nicely presented as a bottom line sum in a country's yearly budget or an easy to grasp management summary paragraph.
    you realize of course it can never ever get funded under our existing economic regime right ?
    Conflict and pain and destruction fuel evolution. I'm p. sure we'll try (again) to obliterate our own species only to emerge on the other side stronger than ever. Unless we're actually successful this time around
    I'm afraid mankind will be "successful" this time. According to this article, the models that predict the worst outcome (~ 4.5 warming) seem to be the most reliable.

    The problem for humans this time around in opposite to previous worldwide disasters is that the time between cause and actual effect is too long for a single human's lifespan. Even the youngest member of this forum will live his life mostly unaffected by climate change and/or will be able to remedy the threats it poses on him, e.g. moving from the ocean's shoreline to somewhere else: problem solved for him personally. But that doesn't help to remedy the actual risk. But we all would need to act right now in order to keep the effects managable. But we all don't. Look no further than the current water crisis in Capetwon to get a taste of what awaits mankind. And that is "only" a direct effect (most likely, attributing such events directly to climate change is still a risk, because it might not be related). All the possible side effects form climate change, for example the life in the oceans will vanish slowly, are what will put the nails in mankind's coffin. The irony of it is although its effects dawn upon us too slow to make us react accordingly, it's way too fast for most life forms to adapt properly.

    I actually gave up on mankind. The most intelligent species, the pride of creation? Haha, more like the worst vermin that ever plagued earth.

  17. #1837
    Donor lubica's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 9, 2011
    Location
    On the shitty side of the Alps
    Posts
    4,863
    Quote Originally Posted by Hel OWeen View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Cosmin View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Liare View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Hel OWeen View Post
    That guy I mentioned had a rather sensible approach. He didn't go "solar/biomass/hydrogen/wind/<whateverelse> power is the solution!oneelven!" Instead he mentioned that his team developed an energy mix for each country of this world, costumed-tailored for that country's circumstances/environment (location/geography etc.).

    The only real hindrance are the exceptional high initial costs, IMHO. But as I mentioned: those will amortize themselves. But more importantly, if one sums up the direct and indirect costs the world already deals with, which are caused by climate change - (prevention for) disasters, refugees etc., we're nearing a zero-sum situation. Just that the later sums are splatter all over various places and are not nicely presented as a bottom line sum in a country's yearly budget or an easy to grasp management summary paragraph.
    you realize of course it can never ever get funded under our existing economic regime right ?
    Conflict and pain and destruction fuel evolution. I'm p. sure we'll try (again) to obliterate our own species only to emerge on the other side stronger than ever. Unless we're actually successful this time around
    I'm afraid mankind will be "successful" this time. According to this article, the models that predict the worst outcome (~ 4.5 warming) seem to be the most reliable.

    The problem for humans this time around in opposite to previous worldwide disasters is that the time between cause and actual effect is too long for a single human's lifespan. Even the youngest member of this forum will live his life mostly unaffected by climate change and/or will be able to remedy the threats it poses on him, e.g. moving from the ocean's shoreline to somewhere else: problem solved for him personally. But that doesn't help to remedy the actual risk. But we all would need to act right now in order to keep the effects managable. But we all don't. Look no further than the current water crisis in Capetwon to get a taste of what awaits mankind. And that is "only" a direct effect (most likely, attributing such events directly to climate change is still a risk, because it might not be related). All the possible side effects form climate change, for example the life in the oceans will vanish slowly, are what will put the nails in mankind's coffin. The irony of it is although its effects dawn upon us too slow to make us react accordingly, it's way too fast for most life forms to adapt properly.

    I actually gave up on mankind. The most intelligent species, the pride of creation? Haha, more like the worst vermin that ever plagued earth.
    And yet no other species on this planet has even an infinitesimal chance of being able to stop the heating or even reverse it. Humanity has the potential to solve the issues it created. Throwing your hands up in the air and giving up, because there is no immediate fix, is the worst approach to take. We've been polluting the planet since the 1750s, in 1900 we still believed that there is a near inexhaustible supply of food in the world's oceans, we only realized what CO2 does to the global temperature retention in the 1970s. Get a grip and contribute to the solution, do your best to pollute less, express your opinion to your political representatives and business leaders, if that's all you can do. Scoring political points and the battle for customers will work in your favour, if the public's opinion is united and clearly expresed enough.

    Giving up is easy.


    Quote Originally Posted by Narmio
    Welcome to Dwarf Fortress, where there is a fine line between insanity and gameplay. The line menaces with spikes of obsessive compulsion.

  18. #1838
    Liare's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 9, 2011
    Location
    Denmark
    Posts
    12,327
    Quote Originally Posted by lubica View Post
    And yet no other species on this planet has even an infinitesimal chance of being able to stop the heating or even reverse it. Humanity has the potential to solve the issues it created. Throwing your hands up in the air and giving up, because there is no immediate fix, is the worst approach to take. We've been polluting the planet since the 1750s, in 1900 we still believed that there is a near inexhaustible supply of food in the world's oceans, we only realized what CO2 does to the global temperature retention in the 1970s. Get a grip and contribute to the solution, do your best to pollute less, express your opinion to your political representatives and business leaders, if that's all you can do. Scoring political points and the battle for customers will work in your favour, if the public's opinion is united and clearly expresed enough.

    Giving up is easy.
    the scientific consensus on global warming crystallized out over 30 years ago, and we're miles away from adopting even the minimum-required measures for the most optimistic scenario, and this is not because there's a lack of popular support either. the reality is that the people with the power to change things by large dont give a fuck, your " political representatives and business leaders" are more interested in keeping their wealth and power than they are in addressing these problems and why ? because our socio-economic system doesn't actually work with the sort of outcomes that meaningfully addressing climate change requires, a capitalistic system without growth is inevitably going to cannibalize itself until it explodes into the fires of revolution.

    our entire system of economic incentives is specifically geared towards the opposite of what is required to address climate change, but people are more interested in arguing over piss-tapes and memos than actually doing something about said incentive structures.
    Viking, n.:
    1. Daring Scandinavian seafarers, explorers, adventurers, entrepreneurs world-famous for their aggressive, nautical import business, highly leveraged takeovers and blue eyes.
    2. Bloodthirsty sea pirates who ravaged northern Europe beginning in the 9th century.

    Hagar's note: The first definition is much preferred; the second is used only by malcontents, the envious, and disgruntled owners of waterfront property.

  19. #1839
    Donor erichkknaar's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 9, 2011
    Posts
    10,964
    Quote Originally Posted by Liare View Post
    the reality is that the people with the power to change things by large dont give a fuck
    This is not unique to capitalism. This is a human thing. It will be the same under communism, socialism or any other unsuccessful, impractical ism you lot can come up with. People in general don't give a fuck about problems that aren't literally too late to fix.

    Cape Town, for example; we've know it was going to run out of water in the early 21st century since the 80s Strict population management was needed to hold off the problem. Did they stop people moving there, and all the fucking Europeans who wanted a nice holiday home with 10 bedrooms and massive wastage of water on landscaping who bought money were doing exactly what the climate experts have been saying not to do for 40+ years? Did they fuck.

    It's only a problem now that there are literally less than months of water left. Now most normal people care.
    Last edited by erichkknaar; February 3 2018 at 01:19:45 PM.
    meh

  20. #1840
    Cosmin's Avatar
    Join Date
    March 14, 2012
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    6,001
    Quote Originally Posted by erichkknaar View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Liare View Post
    the reality is that the people with the power to change things by large dont give a fuck
    This is not unique to capitalism. This is a human thing. It will be the same under communism, socialism or any other unsuccessful, impractical ism you lot can come up with. People in general don't give a fuck about problems that aren't literally too late to fix.

    Cape Town, for example; we've know it was going to run out of water in the early 21st century since the 80s Strict population management was needed to hold off the problem. Did they stop people moving there, and all the fucking Europeans who wanted a nice holiday home with 10 bedrooms and massive wastage of water on landscaping who bought money were doing exactly what the climate experts have been saying not to do for 40+ years? Did they fuck.

    It's only a problem now that there are literally less than months of water left. Now most normal people care.
    I think it's a general trend nowadays to be less able to understand highly abstract stuff that isn't there to be touched. Problems/issues that are material are easy to deal with, however looking forward a year is hard, a decade - even harder, couple centuries - almost impossible to comprehend.

    If you have a look on how people are voting you are sure to notice that the campaigns which are successful are addressing immediate issues - e.g. immigration, quality of air - as opposed to more complex ones like where the fuck we're heading as a species. This is because the vast majority of voters can't/won't comprehend highly abstract issues and leaders who care don't say anything about it (because they need their air time to discuss the easier, comprehensible stuffs). Ones who don't care just don't care because they have a similar attention span to their voters.

    The planet will heal in time, I'm not concerned about Earth itself at all. Question is whether humanity will survive or not through all the changes. I find our current technology to be insufficient and above all the people are insufficiently prepared - fat ones will likely kick the bucket first and even fit ones will struggle. Otoh, you can always have a rogue solar flare fry everything and humans killing each other like there's no tomorrow, just picking worst nightmares

    I still think stuff can be fixed. By time, in time. We've had our hands off the wheel for so long I sincerely doubt there's a lot we can do now. However, doesn't mean I'll just give up. But I'm not optimistic.
    Guns make the news, science doesn't.

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •