The standard American way to heat water

Thanks to Marco Arment for this one:

(…) The standard American way to heat water is to take a pot of water out to our pickup truck, open the hood (what the Brits call a “spanner”), and lock the pot onto the engine block using a set of latches readily available at any Wal-Mart. Then we drive around at high speed, reciting the Gospels and firing our shotguns out the window. After reading the Gospel of John for three minutes and sixteen seconds, the water is ready. I hope this puts to rest any confusion.

Dr. Drang on blog comments.


6 thoughts on “The standard American way to heat water

  1. Whilst we in France of course boil it inside the nearest nuclear plant, of which there’s fortunately one at every street corner.

    PS: I just noticed how you copied out my BNC comment of last march (and comments are close now on this, so I can’t comment directly). I feel I should specify I was actually talking from the personal perspective of how one conceives a computing architecture to respect a level of SLA engagement, and how difficult it gets when you reach the level of multiples 9 (99,99xxx). Here with 10 minutes a year, it’s almost at five nines which gets *really* hard. OTOH I’ve had some exchanges with people actually working in the energy sector, and I’m confident the methods they use are completely similar when this kind of reliability of a system is required. I notice that the wikipedia entry about nines in engineering explicitly refers the electricity case.

  2. Oh, so you know about the “Bazar de l’Hôtel de Ville” ? They probably have a nuclear department obviously, they have everything you can think of.

    Yes of course, please add the clarification to the March post.

  3. Yes, BHV is a remarkable resource. We lived in Le Marais district in Paris for 5 months. I hope to see the day when BHV sells SMR’s.

  4. Hey, if you’re a fan of SMR’s, have you ever heard of the flexblue project by the DCNS ? :

    A subsea SMR is an intriguing concept, it answers many concerns about security, making a terrorist attack a 100 meter under water is a lot more difficult, and you can just strike out a number of risks from your security analysis, submerged by a tsunami, no, missing water supply, neither, …
    The Fukushima aftermath showed that even in case of a nuclear disaster, water contamination has definitively a lot less negative impact than the airborne one. Deepwater Horizon had a massive impact on marine life, where for Fukushima absolutely none is known until now.

  5. Thanks for the FlexBlue reference. I agree on your security and safety benefits. I give a high priority to fast deployment of clean gigawatts of nuclear. Fast licensing and the first wave of deployment favors such as the Babcock & Wilcox mPower™ design.

    If the IFR proposal is accepted in the UK that might be the start of a new history.

Comments are closed.