Fukuoka's desalination plant treats about 16400 m^3 of water per day. Assuming 3kWh per m^3 of water, this works out to a time-averaged power consuption of ~2000kW.
The osmotic power plant generates about 100kW, so it's about 5% of the total desalination energy requirement.
Depends on the CAPEX and OPEX requirements. If it is cheap to do, it could be a solid win, but if the plant requires a lot of capital, it might be cheaper to just take the hit on efficiency
Yes the brine could just be diluted wih gray water to reduce the environnemental impact without the energy recovery of the osmotic plant and the capital can be invested in other renewable with better efficiency.
That being said it's a first so it's a pilot project needed to have feedback on a real plant in operation and not just back of the enveloppe calculations and suppositions. Sometime you need to just build the thing to encounter problems, issues or non-issues.
I wish this comment was more representative of my personal experience in science.
Instead I got PIs happy to say that weak evidence "proved" their theory and to try suppress evidence that negatively impacted "fundablity". The most successful scientists I worked with were the ones who always talked like a PR puff piece.
The issue is not really with the difference in impact between drone attacks and other types of aerial attacks, but with the dramatic increase in scale, resulting from reduced cost and risk.
It probably would have been more accurate to say something like "mass extra-judicial assasination/execution of individuals opaquely labelled as 'militants,' including US citizens, in foreign jurisdictions" instead of "drone strikes," but the latter is shorter and I thought would be understood as implying the former.
They invaded two countries simultaneously (one landlocked). Then used secret stealth helicopters to fly a hit squad into an allied nations territory for one particular individual.
I don't think this is a fruitful debate but I doubt risk & cost are as much a determining factor as you'd like.
Using something similar to a benzene ring with spokes sticking out of it is absolutely a reasonable choice for depicting sodium hexametaphosphate in a schematic. This is actually a pretty common choice in scientific literature regarding this molecule.
If you look at it more carefully, it isn't really a benzene ring, though. It's got multiple layers to it.
And the neural net crossover is just wrong. Really, really wrong.
This is nominally educational content. Any way in which it is wrong is something that people can and will pick up on and form incorrect assumptions about which they will carry forward. It's not enough that it is vaguely sort of, if we're generous, isn't entirely wrong. That's not the bar for human work either.
Do you really think the engineers building a robot to go into Fukishima have never once looked at the first handful of google results for "radiation hardened camera"?
A more generous reading of that comment would be that it’s other things not the camera’s that are causing the problem.
A CCD image sensor that’s lost 20% of its pixels could still be providing useful information, especially if you’re just trying to get the robot out. Other systems may inherently have issues long before that point.
I call this process "learning"