'<X>G' is just the generation of the standard used to communicate. It's got nothing to do with increased danger. There's no reason to think that 5G is more harmful than 3G or 4G or that 6G would be more dangerous either.
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.
I heard about a military helicopter simulator, where one of the conditions was that it would emulate the action of kangaroos, which can give away your position by fleeing from an invisible helicopter.On the upside, the pilots avoided kangaroos very well after that.
- In the acceptance tests for the simulator, a helicopter approached a mob of kangaroos, and they bounded away in a very realistic manner.
- Then one of the kangaroos stopped, turned around, and fired a rocket-propelled missile at the helicopter
- It turned out that in simulating the mob of kangaroos, the manufacturer had repurposed an existing model for a platoon of infantry - they changed the icon, lengthened the stride, and dialled up their anxiety. They forgot to disarm them.
However since Martian gravitation is only about 0.3g there is no need to replicate Earth's gravitational acceleration throughout the trip.One interesting factoid: nobody knows what the minimum g-force is for human being's long term survival.
It is left as an exercise to the reader to choose between powered deceleration at > 0.1g, say, during the last few months of the trip,That's completely beyond current propulsion technology.
Interestingly, a semiconductor thermocouple pair can have up to 30% efficiency, and a heat pump COP can exceed 4.That looks like a net gain!Nope. Show your working.
Average output of a solar unit in the UK is 10% of its rated power, so that's 25600 kg of CO2 to produce 1 kW for 20 years (performance falls off towards the end of life) - 175000 kWh, say 0.156 kg CO2 per kWh. That's about 2.5 times the energy per unit CO2 that you'd get by burning coal, or 1.5 times what you'd get from diesel fuel, so it's marginally economic as long as you don't need to store the electricity, in which case the climate would probably be better off with coal.
If you need to replace all your internal combustion and gas heating systems in order to use solar electricity, and build electrical storage systems, the carbon break even period looks more like 200 years.
I'm missing something? Well, the original claim of this entire thread was that it took 2560 kg of CO2 to make 1 kW of solar panels:So actually when you put these two posts together:
But this is an out of date claim going back to 2015. The figure in 2020 was 76% lower 615 kg CO2e/kWp:
Yes, they can be worthwhile if you want to set up a society in the forests without any human intervention, then it is one of the only few choices.Yeah, that's not what I've found. We've just put down a deposit for an on-grid solar panel/battery system here, and we don't live in a forest. The panels will provide about half the electricity over the entire year, and the battery will help store significant amounts of cheap off-peak rate electricity for use during the day as well as buffering usage and production during the day and night. The long term cost for the solar is about 8p per kWh, and hopefully should have a 30 year plus life, with under 15% degradation. Based on careful modelling I expect the system to pay down the cost in about ten years (an APR of about 10%, which under the current economic climate is really good), but the exact rate depends on the tariff costs, but the curve is quite flat. The financial optimum seems to be around where the average generation by the panels is used entirely within the household over summer, which largely prevents importing from the grid, and where the battery is big enough to fill out the production in the 'shoulder months' of Spring and Autumn with stored off-peak electricity.