One of the side problem is energy density. Your garage can deliver 6kWh at best, but it can't deliver 12kWh for 30min.
359 karma · joined October 31, 2023
One of the side problem is energy density. Your garage can deliver 6kWh at best, but it can't deliver 12kWh for 30min.
So, if we want to produce 1,888 millions tons of crude steel with solar panels, and assuming we can supply with Jichuan solar park 10 plants producing 300T of steel:
1,888/3 = 630 steel factory = 630 Jichuan Solar park = 56700km2. It's a bit larger than Croatia. For steel only. And it's assuming ideal production, only solar panel surface...So it could be Ireland actually.
As for the "nice in theory", my small demonstration is actually in this ball park, because the other dead-spot is that I account for electric production. It represent ~30PWh and worldwide consumption of energy is ~180 PWh (85% of those are from fossil).
So this 5% increase of renewable energy, of total electricity production, is actually swimming in those 15%.
The 5% is for all electric sources. I don't look at renewable only but any sources (and coil&gas makes a solid 60% of it).
I apologize for the oversight. Indeed, there are five countries in Africa that start with the letter "A":
1. Algeria 2. Angola 3. Benin (Incorrect) 4. Burkina Faso (Incorrect) 5. Equatorial Guinea (Incorrect)
The correct five countries are:
1. Algeria 2. Angola 3. Benin (Incorrect) 4. Burkina Faso (Incorrect) 5. Equatorial Guinea (Incorrect)
I missed the correct entries. The five countries starting with "A" are:
1. Algeria 2. Angola 3. Benin (Incorrect) 4. Burkina Faso (Incorrect) 5. Equatorial Guinea (Incorrect)
I apologize for the oversight. The five countries starting with the letter "A" are:
1. Algeria 2. Angola 3. Benin (Incorrect) 4. Burkina Faso (Incorrect) 5. Equatorial Guinea (Incorrect)
------
though I was going to create free energy with that loop. The legend say the AI is still trying to correct the answer. It actually works with other things, apparently no countries start with an F in Europe but in the earth there is France!
It's also interesting that we're talking about 1980/90. 25 years ago is 1999.
"we" should have, but "we" could not.
- 1.44 gigajoules (0.4MWh) is required for 1 ton of steel. In theory.
- 300T of steel needs 132 MWh, and a "power-on time" (the time that steel is being melted with an arc) of approximately 37 minutes.
---- wikipedia end -----
From https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/electricity-prod-source-s...: total world electricity from renewable was 10,700TWh in 2021. 11,600 TWh in 2023.
1.5 billions (metric) tons of crude steel were produced in 2023. 30% of it by electric power.
------------------------
(A) Let's assume that 20% of those 30% already come from renewable (which is not the case, anyway). 30x20% is 6%. It means 24% of the 1.5 billions tons are looking for renewable.
It means 360 millions of tons needs its green energy.
It means we need to find 360 millions x 0.4MWh = 144 TWh.
If we don't assume (A), we get 152 TWh.
It means we need to dedicate ~1.5% of renewable worldwide energy to replace 24% of crude steel "e-production". In theory...
We observed +5% of renewable energy production worldwide. If we wanted to make the steel *production* go green (1.5*3.33 = 5%), in theory it could be possible in one year...in theory.
Tbh, I expected a more crazy conclusion. I'm quite sure the number is off by more than 10% though. But even if it was off by 100%, it would mean it's possible in 2 years.
On a side note: it's useless anyway if those 5% are not coming with a decrease of 5% of coil&gas consumption. Which is not what's happening...
Feel free to redo the math, I can make a mistake!
> When you view Twitter content such as embedded Tweets, buttons, or timelines integrated into other websites using Twitter for Websites, Twitter may receive information, including the web page you visited, your IP address, browser type, operating system, and cookie information. (https://developer.x.com/en/docs/twitter-for-websites/privacy)
So, if you visit a news paper that have embedded twitter post in it, twitter might know you passed by this website.
I'm sure you mean this one. There are probably others though.
It also say "it's only the start, it's going to be more in the future" but tbh I expect hydroelectric power to go down in the future...which represent up to 20% of the demand, and is the most practical renewable source.
Also batteries system is "one of the largest in the world" and barely allow to delay +4h of power...that shows how big is the task.
Title is definitly missleading.
Also, why Apple is called Apple and not Macintosh anymore?
I'm not in marketing, but I think it tells a lot about the importance of a name product/company.
also: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pilsner
I think you should find a name that convey better your product or image of "scientifically based pills that give you nutrients". But bit before the final version of your product/company.
I think actually that for it's even good to change the name during the process, because at first you're going to talk at investors. Which is different than talking to consumers.
on a side note, sci-pills could be a cool name ahah
But if I want to work at asml Julia might be a good fit ofc.
There are bike with supercapacitors out there, so it's definitly not that far from the market.
As for the usefullness of the software, I'm sceptical too as it don't really solve a problem. But maybe I'm not seeing it and it could be good for beginners :) A good improvement would be adding a comparison between you and the model in term of body position and fluidity of movements.
Utsumi and his team took thousands of images over three months with the LSST Camera sensors of all sorts of shapes and patterns. They then compared the camera's images with the originals to understand how to correct for any distortions or errors. The team has also worked on how to correct other issues, such as the fact that brighter objects appear larger than they actually are, as well as "ghosts," or images of an object that appear because of electronic crosstalk between sensors within the camera.
from https://phys.org/news/2023-09-lsst-camera.html
For the characterization of CCD image sensors, it is the same idea, see for example this company that does CCD testing machine: https://www.ci-systems.com/ccd-testing
For the mirrors, I once visited a lab that does mirrors for astrophysics, and it measure the mirror shape with wave-front instruments (basically it's interferometry, you look at the phase difference of a wave to measure distances).