geek66 t1_jaxdtun wrote

Reply to comment by Barra79 in [OC] Wind Speed Vs Wind Power by Barra79

This one makes a little more sense to me, I would expect max power to be at lower speed than the original Germany based plot, and the decreasing power at high wind speed as they go offline and “park”


geek66 t1_j8yk9r4 wrote

A self-powered, completely closed system, sustainable biosphere with predicted >1000 year viability. Personally I believe the scale would require 10000 to 100000 space launches from earth based on our current payload capacity.

Granted this is not a “precaution” per se, but if we can accomplish this, the precautions would be secondary, or a trivial undertaking.


geek66 t1_j6dclfd wrote

As pointed out they are, but the market will not really pay for them.

The manufacturers make more profit on large higher performance vehicles, and have had to sell their smaller high efficient vehicles at a loss for years to meet their fleet efficiency standards (CAFE requirements). It does not cost 3x as much to make a $90k car as a $30k one.

So the typical efficient car buyer is not really interested in paying for efficiency, they are buying on price.


geek66 t1_j3raouq wrote

While not news - this was reported weeks ago - this to me is a Milestone, but not a "breakthrough" as it was referred to - is is the result of multiple innovations and improvements. Conceivably a tipping point - but the size and the cost of the apparatus - relative to the energy gain is huge and we are still 20 years away


geek66 t1_j1ijcb0 wrote

I generally say nay on the fusion thing, a great mile stone but this is a painfully slow evolution of tech and not a real breakthrough.

I want to make the distinction because fusion IS an incredibly important tech, but publicity as a breakthrough leads people to believe this is much closer than it is.

Basically … when tech news leads people to believe that Tech will save us from GW and not require us to dramatically change our behaviors, well… drives me nuts.