> We could have standardized the old reactors too.
Yes, but the potential market for GW-size reactors is fairly limited.
Now, whether the market for any of these SMR reactors is large enough that any of them will be able to see any of these supposed economies of scale is a big question.
People have been arguing nuclear is too expensive and soon renewables will be so cheap they will push fossil fuels out of the grid for 30 years, if not more. Meanwhile during those 30 years, while waiting for the price of renewables to drop sufficiently, the world has built massive amounts of fossil power generation and emissions have been going up and up.
That being said, it seems finally solar+wind+storage+a little bit of other stuff is becoming cheap enough that it's starting to make a dent in the emissions. Which is fantastic, don't get me wrong. But it's also sad we've lost decades.
My argument was that while waiting for renewables to become cheap, we could have built nuclear instead of fossil capacity and avoided a shitton of emissions. The Messmer plan being an existence proof that such a thing would have been possible.
I've been a Ubuntu user for about 20 years, and I file bugs every now and then on launchpad. I don't recall any of them ever being fixed.
Maybe the bugs get traction if you have a service contract?
Best to file bugs directly to upstream, but that of course means you should try it on the latest upstream version and not whatever version ubuntu ships, so it's more friction.
I don't see how installing underfloor heating in an existing house can make economic sense. Additionally in older houses the windows tend to be a bit leaky, so the radiators being under the windows is important to prevent unpleasant cold drafts.
Yes, the heat pump will take an efficiency hit for using radiators rather than underfloor heating. I'd say that's just part of the cost of living in an old house.
My father has a wood burning boiler connected to the same water circuit that heats the radiators as his air-water heat pump. Originally when the house was built it was a wood-oil combi boiler, later on the oil burner was ripped out and the heat pump installed (at that point there were government grants available for replacing oil heating with heat pumps).
It does work well, and when it gets cold in the winter and the efficiency of the heat pump drops, he burns wood. But honestly the system is a jungle of pipes and valves, and the guys who did the heat pump installation were unable to wrap their heads around it. Luckily my father is a handy guy so he was able to do it himself.
But I'm thinking if one were to do something like this from scratch, without the history of the existing boiler already being there and installed, I wouldn't bother with it. Just have a few good old school wood stoves with significant thermal mass (masonry heater or whatever you call them in the US) in the house that you can use to provide extra heat when it's cold, and as backup in case there's an electricity outage.
My father has a Mitsubishi air-water heat pump, generating hot water for the iron radiators in the house. Uses R32 refrigerant, not CO2 as in this article, but still. While efficiency is reduced by the need to have decently high temperatures in the radiators, it's still decent-ish. IIRC he still gets a COP of around 2-2.5 when it's -15C outside.
This is in Europe, might be different on the other side of the pond.
I believe there are propane using split AC systems where propane is used only in the outside unit. The outside unit has a heat exchanger transferring the heat to some glycol-water solution which is what then circulates through the inside unit.
If you do positioning in degrees, minutes, and seconds (or decimal minutes which I guess is more common nowadays), a 'natural' length unit for navigation is a minute of longitude, which is the original definition of the nautical mile. And then we get velocity as nautical miles per hour, or knots.
Blame the French for reinventing the wheel instead of, say, using a 1/1000th of a nautical mile as the definition of the metre. Alas, that's all water under the bridge by now.
If you want to do navigation in SI units, the UTM projections (see sibling thread) typically do positioning in metres inside each grid square.
Funnily enough the metre is defined by the globe as well: the arc from the equator to North pole is defined as 10,000 km. I think this might be where the alternative angle metrics came from, which went with the metre:
full circle is 400 grad, so a right angle (10,000 km) is 100 grad.
Then minutes and seconds are factors of 100, so a centesimal minute is 1 km and 1 centesimal second is 10 m.
Originally it was defined like that, but it was fairly quickly redefined as the distance between marks on a prototype platinum bar. It's had a couple of other definitions since then, but it's currently defined "by taking the fixed numerical value of the speed of light in vacuum c to be 299 792 458 when expressed in the unit ms⁻¹, where the second is defined in terms of the caesium frequency ΔνCs".
Yes technically speaking there is a different physical reference now but that's where it came from. A bit like how 1 ft is now 304.8mm but that's because it's the size of a human foot (with some historic details no doubt).
> that isn't a change to the definition of the meter
How is it not? it's not a change to the actual distance (well, it is for a sufficient precision), but a change to the definition of the metre is exactly what it is. It's defined relative to the speed of light rather than a random platinum bar length, with the constant picked so that the actual measurement stay the same (up to a certain level of precision).
reply