Because he's frustrated by the lack of political scrutiny of Joe Bidens leadership.
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Why China? Did the meltdown occur there? If not, it's not going to end up in China. The opposite side of Earth from China is the Pacific not far west of Peru/Chile, and you didn't say you were from there.Because for around 2000 years China was a mystical place, as far away as you can get, hidden behind great walls on the other side of the world. Many phrases are linked to this, such as "row to China" "walk to china" etc as it was considered the farthest of the far.
In the film The china syndrome, the term is where the nuclear fuel melts through to the ground water and then explodes in a dirty bomb, so for most areas where there are nuke plants the water table would be within a few metres of the surface. I have no doubt the cia where frustrated to learn that this was not a viable weapons delivery system.Quote from: HalcWhy China?It might be before your time: "The China Syndrome" movie was a box-office hit in 1979.
The title comes from the myth that if a nuclear reactor had a meltdown, it would melt its way all the way through the Earth, and come out on the other side (China being an exotic and distant location on "the other side of the Earth").
See trailer: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0078966/
PS: This came up on another thread, talking about nuclear meltdowns.
“Engine breaking is the drag from the engaged drive chain. Brakes are better if you need to reduce speed. “but you did
The discussion is not about what has more stopping power.
When you need to reduce speed with a rate of engine braking or faster because you can’t anticipate everything it is certainly better to use engine braking.
I mean letting the car in a gear versus coasting in neutral, if you need to reduce speed faster than the coasting in neutral(or clutch pedal pressed) does, then letting the car in gear is more fuel efficient because it cuts off the fuel.no the car does not cut fuel. Reducing speed nas no real effect on efficiency.
When you need to reduce speed with a rate of engine braking or faster because you can’t anticipate everything it is certainly better to use engine braking.Engine breaking is the drag from the engaged drive chain. Brakes are better if you need to reduce speed.
Tomorrow I am planning to test-drive a car with regenerative braking. I wonder how smoothly it can transition between modes?Intresting to know Evan.
Electrically speaking you could surely do away with the alternator and use the regenerative breaking, if it can actually propel a car using it I would think there is enough power.I have completed a test of engine breaking loss. I have a vw polo 2010 1.2 litre petrol, no air con, nor does the car have auto off when stationary. I did 2 tests in largely similar weather conditions and traffic level conditions and area.
The biggest saving you could make is the engine braking, I think it has something to do with the selected gear of the car and the drive chain at the rpm not being in sync with the normal tick over speed of an idle engine, some sort of destructive interference, the alternator does not have a great effect.
Both are essential. The scientific problem is that it takes at least 10 years to build a nuclear power station even after the bribes have been paid. The economic problem is that a declining population implies a shrinking economy and falling house prices - the Daily Mail won't like that."house prices" are supply and demand at present, with the pitiful state of some housing stocks supply will not be outstripping demand for at least a generation.
Or an asteroid. The same source material is what I am thinking. Of course with Jupiter's migration it is hard to say what went on.Quote from: PetrochemicalsIf comets are balls of mainly ice there is easily a good source for Earth's water in the moon.Please clarify the connection?
- The Moon is not a comet, and (according to current theories) never was a comet, so how is it a good source of water?
The choice is obvious: reduce the population to a level that can travel around on solar electricity
Close distances, eccentric orbits, gravitational attraction and the solar wind could combine to transfer atmosphere.But how close was the moon, how eccentric its orbit?
Ah yes, I'm glad you brought this up. I had completely forgotten that the Moon was significantly closer when it first formed (33,000 - 44,000 km). That would have made atmospheric capture more plausible, but I still think the majority would have been swept away by the solar wind.
You can forget hydro. Practically all the useable sites in Scotland are either already developed or too precious to flood, and the rest of the UK is too flat.2 percent or 4000 sq km is that is for 1/10th of the uk energy usage. Solar farms have to account for shadow angle and the access paths and tracks to the panels, total land area should top out at roughly 50 percent. With 10 percent built on there should be just enough room for the national parks.
For solar panels, an average for the UK over a year is about 1 - 2 W/sq ft, so to meet 40 GW you need 20 - 40,000,000 000 square ft of panels, say 1,000,000 acres, about 2% of the total land area. That's only skimming the surface of the problem since you get no solar power at night, so you need at least 500 GWh of battery and 40 GW of inverter capacity to keep the grid running.
And of course if we get rid of domestic gas heating and fossil-fuelled cars, we will need about 4 times the current grid capacity. By the time we have moved to all-electric traction and industry we will have about 15% of the country covered in solar cells. That will have quite an ecological impact.
The majority of the Moon's atmosphere was probably lost to space. Due to the Earth's stronger gravity, some of it could have potentially made its way there. However, I'd like to point out just how far away the Earth is from the Moon: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbit_of_the_Moon#/media/File:Moon_distance_range_to_scale.svgBut how close was the moon, how eccentric its orbit?
I would thus expect only a very tiny amount of the Moon's lost atmosphere to have found its way to Earth.
Mars lost much of its atmosphere too yet has significant gravity, I thought it was to do with the molten magnetic core.
Fortunately, the Earth has enough gravity to retain an atmosphere, while the Moon's atmosphere is a very good vacuum, and very transient.