[1] here's a 5 year old news article with a screenshot from 2013. https://www.teslarati.com/spacex-paints-x-on-western-falcon-...
4,222 karma · joined May 25, 2018
[1] here's a 5 year old news article with a screenshot from 2013. https://www.teslarati.com/spacex-paints-x-on-western-falcon-...
Don't get me wrong, I absolutely think all those are key, and need to be focused on immediately. Those help to reduce demand, but (with the exception of renewables) don't help improve supply. If we want to eliminate carbon emissions worldwide, nuclear will be a key component (along with massive renewables). For example, the Japanese grid has been developing various renewables on superdrive since 2011, yet they are only at 20% renewable, with national carbon emissions ~500gCO2/kWh - dramatically higher than when their nuclear fleet was operational. Germany has been pushing renewables for close to two decades, but they closed down their nuclear plants and are similarly at ~500gCO2/kWh. France has had a nuclear-based grid for a couple decades and while it has its own issues, their emissions intensity is ~50gCO2/kWh. Ontario is hydro and nuke, they're ~100gCO2/kWh (some storage and more renewables would help them dramatically reduce emissions from gas, but current conservative premier spent billions scrapping that plan)
> To put this in perspective: you could build on the order of 1000 Mustikkamaa heat caverns for the price of one nuclear plant!
Yes, all you need is 1000 old oil storage caverns already dug sitting there waiting to be filled with water...
Most large construction projects suffer when there is too great a separation between design and construction. There needs to be feedback from one to the other, and when it takes 30 years to go from conceptual design to operational reactor, that feedback loop just isn't there. One big promise of SMRs is for components to be prefabricated - if you're building multiple of an object, the connection between design and construction will be much closer.
Heating emissions for a city at 60° North are a big challenge to reduce, and combined heat and power is a huge efficiency gain - the heat is otherwise wasted, and thermal emissions are an environmental issue in their own right.
The emissions could be reduced much further if they decrease the 55% of their generation that comes from fossil fuel fired CHP plants[1], and increased their nuclear capacity from current 27% (unfortunately they had to cancel a plan to build another reactor because their partner was rosatom[2])
[1] https://fi.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helen
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_Finland#React...
Read up about Hydro Quebec. They generate gigawatts in Northern Quebec and export large amounts to New England. HVDC is pretty efficient.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydro-Qu%C3%A9bec's_electricit...
> a Zojirushi cup isn't the same as an imperial cup
Indeed, a zojirushi cup is 180ml, while an imperial cup is 284ml. Perhaps you meant a US Customary cup, at either 237ml or 240ml? Then there's a whole mess of other measurements people call a "cup" (118ml, 227ml, 250ml...)
1. Build the base structure of cycler in earth orbit, then transfer it into the orbit you want (i.e. earth-jupiter intersecting). This would be structure, engines, shielding. This might require a couple dozen nuclear thermal boosters, or maybe it has to be phased over two launch periods and assembled in the cycling orbit
2. Assemble in earth orbit everything you want for a manned mission (food, water, landing craft, astronauts)
3. Rendezvouz that material with the cycler on its next orbit (I don't know the timing for earth-jupiter - maybe 12 years after step 1). This is a comparatively small effort, as the shielding and habitable space was already taken care of with step 1
4. live your life for the year or whatever the transfer is
5. Take your landing craft from the cycler to Europa surface
Different crews can hop on the original cycler by repeating steps 2 to 5. Conceptually you would want multiple of these cyclers coming and going, so that a crew can arrive on Europa on cycler A and return on Cycler G, only spending 5 years on Europa instead of 12. Their advantage is that the big heavy mass (sheilding) only has to be launched once, and can be used repeatedly, indefinitely.
I disagree, one of the types I referenced is cyclers, which are specifically good for the same kind of reason. NERVA is another alternative that becomes similarly easier as you scale it up. All three types would need in-space assembly, so no big issues with any of them that way.
Don't get me wrong, Orion is cool (and the only way to conceivably run an interstellar mission with known technology/physics), but it isn't necessary (or even desirable imo) for interplanetary missions, at least as far as saturn anyway.
I don't think this is the general consensus. It is seen as one of the only ways to get humans out of the solar system, but other nuclear rockets[1], and even chemical options[2], could get humans to eg the Jovian moons[3] with TRL's much higher than Project Orion.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NERVA
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interplanetary_spaceflight#Cyc...
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exploration_of_Jupiter#Human_e...
Fun test! I'd note for others, the quality of your screen can make a difference - I found one of the lines a lot easier on my phone (first try) than on my computer (second try) - though I got perfect both times.
Have a source for that? This section[1] of the ja.wikipedia article could apparently use your revisions - both kanji are acceptable.
[1] https://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E4%BA%A4%E9%80%9A%E4%BF%A1%E5...
Your joke comment is a quarter century out of date
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_current_ships_of_the_R...
https://www.nsnews.com/local-news/north-van-firm-scraps-west...
No, you're missing my point - the secondary link is the study of flossing w.r.t. oral health outcomes. The primary (causal) links are whether flossing removes food particles, and whether food particles cause tooth decay (neither of which seems to be under contention here). By just studying whether flossing improves oral hygiene, you're introducing a huge number of variables that are difficult to control for (flossing skill, other hygiene factors like flossing or "rinsing", dietary choices, self reporting errors, etc etc etc).
(edit: to summarize: A causes B, B causes C, but you don't like saying A causes C because people kind of suck at A, and D, E, and F all also cause C which makes studying the relationship between A and C a challenge)
I blame the regulations (more specifically, the lack thereof)
No? If a given employee is making $17/hr, and working the union agreed 40 hours a week, they are making $35360. If they get a 40% raise over four years, they will be making $23.80/hr, and working 32 hours a week, giving an annual wage of $39,603.20. This is an increase in annual wage of 12% over four years. The hourly wage is an increase of 40% over four years. No one is getting close to 70%.
> Are you hopeful about a 70% pay increase in four years?
Honestly yes, I think that is in the realm of possibility, as I'm currently pretty underwaged for my industry and experience level. Currently interviewing for a job at a 45% increase. Regardless, as I demonstrated above, your 70% number is, as you put it, propagandha. I certainly feel that the post-2007 UAW hires aren't being compensated adequately for any industry, and the 40% hourly increase they're seeking is quite reasonable.
> There is no reality where line workers screwing in the same 3 door bolts all day long are getting what amounts to an effective ~70% pay increase in one year.
Please align your own comments. They are looking for a 40% hourly pay increase over 4 years, and a reduction to a 32 hour work week. These combined work out to an increase of 12% in annual pay, over four years. No UAW hired since 2007 makes more than $17/hour.
If you're looking for more details of what the UAW wants, they are in this article: https://www.cnbc.com/2023/09/13/where-uaw-negotations-stand-...
First half of which comment?
> Since it appears your confused as to what the article is about, let me spell it out step by step:
I was replying to your comments, not the article. Your comments specifically asked about machines that had quicker modes. Your comments didn't have any of the details you're now providing. I haven't read the article and don't have any interest in doing so.
You've moved the goalposts so far they're onto an entirely different field here.
that didn't appear to be an exhaustive list. Looking at the Mopria site, I see Brother along with 9 other brands not mentioned.
It's well available at retailers in Canada. I could go purchase one this afternoon.
> but it doesn't seem to have info. on when it was introduced. Can you link a model that is confirmed to predate November 2020?
The product manual mentions a revision to the power cord made in September 2020, so that product predates nov 2020.