The feasibility of this is completely determined by the insulation and albedo of the house. Working around the thermal inertia of the house is tricky, blasting the AC hard at night is only effective if your house is moderately well insulated or good at not absorbing heat (reflective roof, wall insulation, reflective blinds etc, and by reflective I don't mean tinfoil, I mean like white or bright colored, basically no black or dark). Building elements are remarkably bad at storing heat/coolth since their sensible heat capacity is quite low. There are ways to enhance this effect though by getting building elements that are doped with phase change materials.

Of course the insulation part of the equation is a double-edged sword. You want insulation, but you always want air circulation at a rate conducive to low CO2 levels. Maybe a compromise using something like Sheetrock with extra paraffin, and the whole thing painted Anti-flash white, with air exchange passed through heat exchangers underground.

It would be pretty expensive to maintain though.

In modern homes air tightness and mechanical ventilation are both required by code in many places to deal with the issues you've raised.

Even a crappy insulated house has some thermal lag. Which is what you are playing with.

I think people get confused because a low carbon grid is going to have a different pricing structure than the current one where 'base load' power is cheap at night. The reverse will be true. Power in the evening is going to be spensive. With the cheapest power at noon.

The solution is to time shift demand. A lot of demand can be time shifted. HVAC can be time shifted using thermal lag and storage. You don't really need batteries for that.

They wouldn't be. We limit ourselves to current or near current technology for these analysis or you can easily get into the realms of hypotheticals very easily. If you say that the laws of thermodynamics don't apply to aliens because they have more advanced physics then the sky becomes the limit. So you have to stick by your own rule book when you imagine, so it'd be more appropriate to say that there is unlikely to be Dyson swarms near us that were built by aliens with a similar understanding of physics. For all we know the popular way that they gather energy is harvesting photons from within the star itself, stick a giant straw into a star and just drink away the photons.

I'm not suggesting that we speculate into high fantasy. What I'm getting at is that we can't come to a conclusion about whether advance civilizations exist or what they might look like to us. So quite the opposite of realms of hypotheticals really.

Looks like the issue is the feed stock, non-uniform particle size distribution and significant differences in aspect ratio. All the different pieces are clumping up because of the particle interlocking. Maybe consider a grill sorter on the outlet of your size reduction system, allow <1cm particles through and rehandle larger particles back into whatever is chopping, or add secondary size reduction.

With all due respect to Garneau, I don't think the statement that he wouldn't hesitate to get on a max 8 doesn't really mean much considering he willingly flew 3 times on the most deadliest aircraft of the modern era.

I would respect anyone who changes their opinion after seeing new facts.

I don’t understand this ridiculous burden we place on our politicians. Why can’t they change their opinion on things when new facts come to light? I am not saying changing principles but opinions.

Like someone asked “I see new facts and change my opinion. What do you do?”

Well, calling the shuttle an aircraft is a bit of a stretch. It was more like a slightly aerodynamic rock.

Isn't the alternative an abandonment of the 737 max 8 series from international carriers? The US currently has the largest aviation market but it's growing globally. Airbus has the 320neo and 220 which are direct/close competitors.

Remember the 737 has been slowly growing each generation: the A220-100 doesn't compete with the 737 MAX at all (it's smaller than the 737 MAX 7, and the MAX 7 has only 61 orders, out of over 5000 total orders). It provides a possible replacement for the A318 and 737-600 (but also neither of those sold well either!); it's biggest competition is probably the E195-E2.

The A220-300 competes with the A319neo and 737 MAX 7 (and the A319neo isn't selling any better than than the MAX 7).

I don't think really an abandonment is on the cards: too many fleets are too heavily bought into the 737 family, and the cost of migrating away is real. By way of comparison, the A320(ceo) hardly had the best of starts to its life either with the Air France Flight 296 crash (which while different, still wasn't exactly good press!).

That was the falcon heavy test launch. The two rockets that landed were side boosters which so happened to be two other falcon 9s.

It's the first new crew vehicle launch from the US since the end of the space shuttle program in 2011. It's also in theory a lot cheaper than the Soyuz.

Hans Rosling did a lot of work on communicating birthrate in the developing world and how in general they trend towards the replacement rate ted talk where he goes over it:https://vimeo.com/79878808

The same can be said about any power flowing into the county. Wikipedia indicates that the two major power plants in San Bernardino county are in solar, thus they must be importing power at night in order to meet the cities needs. Consequently the argument "They're opposing renewable energy that is used primarily to serve out-of-town customers" can be applied for any and all energy projects which has/is currently fedding the county. The power grid is communal resource, all communities benefit from it and as a result we all need to contribute to it, if not you'll end up with islanded power distribution systems that are a lot more expensive.

They're not a conversion system so you don't measure them in terms efficiency, rather you use coefficient of performance, you can never have efficiencies above 100%.

In power terms it is above 100% efficient because the watts in is lower than the watts out.

No, the heat moved is greater than the watts in. The machine itself has considerable parasitic losses, and a simple electric baseboard heater is more “efficient”, using the strict definition of the term.

The difference is that most people don’t care about “efficiency”; they care about heat moved per watt. But it matters a great deal more when you try to use a heat pump in a really cold environment, as the heat-transfer ratio of the machine plummets (which is why, in the real world, heat pumps fall back to gas or electric in cold weather).

It also matters in a scenario where you’re comparing two different machines that are powered by something small and intermittent, like a windmill.