just thinking: why stop at 2? I suppose a grid of heat towers with mirrors beneath would provide maximum utilization of the solar radiation
Antitoxic9087
joined 10 months ago
its the marginal cost of running existing plants, mainly from fuel cost.
since death star is capable of delivery a blast with high energy density, its core might be a nuclear fusion or anti matter power plant. maybe the mass there generates sufficient gravitational force.
The political context here is that the Australian conservatives (the liberal coalition I suppose), who have been vividly against climate policies and renewables, are now trying to propose nuke projects on coal power plant sites. Many of these coal power plants are soon to be phased out with renewables plus storage in the queue for the freed transmission capacity, so there isn't really any advantages these sites can offer for nuke projects decades from now.
Of course, any realistic realization of nukes in Australia would be no earlier than 2040 (some even suggest 2050), by then they could already get 100% renewable in energy system easily.
my understanding is that Taiwan buys weapons from the us, so he is demanding something that is already a common practice
just a reminder if they put the orange diamonds for wind and solar it would probably lie somewhere near zero $/MWh
It is highly dependent of the local geological conditions. Convection-based geothermal plants (those with hot spring flowing around) probably have less constraints on heat extraction limit. Conduction-based geothermal plants will face more problems.
In some shallow geothermal use case the ground is used as seasonal heat storage so heat renewable rate is not an issue.
The moemorphic character shown in the picture is Archchan, created by ravimo. I wonder why show her in a discussion about Mint?
I have a LED lightbulb that starts to flicker. Is there anyway to fix it, or any parts of it that could be useful for other uses(i.e. diodes for use in electrical circuits)?
Correction: After checking the product serial number carefully it is a fluorescent lightbulb as many pointed out. Thanks for the correction and advice.
(PS I am renting a house now so the type of lightbulb is of my landlord's choice. Obviously were I to choose I would rather have a LED lightbulb)
I looked into the gwp* thing and it is more appropriate for macroscopic / global analysis than for the carbon accounting of individuals. if one reduces 1 unit per year of emission of short live GHG now, can they claim the positive climate effects by comparing with the counterfactual baseline, where they continue to emit the GHG with the same rate forever? That is the equivalent of claiming an infinite amount of emission reduction.
in any case it is always possible to use a pulse response function to account for the gwp of any instantaneous emission increase/decrease, since gwp* is just the convolution of the pulse response over time.