Slashdot Mirror


Saudi Arabia Puts World's Biggest Solar Power Project On Hold (dw.com)

An anonymous reader quotes a report from Deutsche Welle: Citing Saudi government officials, the U.S. business daily The Wall Street Journal (WSJ) reported Monday that Saudi plans to build the world's largest solar power generation facility had been shelved, as the desert kingdom was working on a "broader, more practical strategy to boost renewable energy." The solar project was expected to generate about 200 gigawatts of energy by 2030 -- more than three times the country's daily requirement. "It is easy to sway or grab one's attention, but difficult to do any execution," WSJ quoted a senior adviser to the Saudi government as saying. Now, no one was actively working on the project, the source added.

[T]he country's entry into the solar market is being hampered by high costs and logistical issues. The project's first phase alone was expected to gobble up $1 billion, and was due to be funded by the Vision Fund this year. According to the Saudi officials cited by WSJ, Riyadh hadn't yet made any decisions on the project's details, including land acquisition, the structure of development or whether it would receive subsidies from the state. "Everyone is just hoping this whole idea would just die," a Saudi energy official familiar with the matter was quoted as saying. Instead, Saudi officials said the government was now devising a broader renewable energies strategy to be announced in late October, which would help clarify renewable energy goals.

120 comments

  1. It's because by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    they re running out of sun.

  2. Vaporware by psnyder · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Nothing ever started, no plans were even drawn, and no one worked on it. Doesn't look like there was much of a project to "shelve".

    1. Re:Vaporware by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No plans and no staff suggests they didn't actually intent to go ahead with it.

      Did this project merely exist for the purpose of courting Tesla for acquisition?

    2. Re:Vaporware by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well it obviously has conflicting "sense-making" in a country whose only export is oil to give free advertising to an oil replacing alternative, almost underlining the problems with oil in the future. To lead in solar is to destroy their golden goose.

      I'm sure that dawned on someone over there.

    3. Re: Vaporware by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is easy to sway or grab one's attention, but difficult to do any execution

      That's strange. Normally Saudi Arabia is pretty good at executing....

    4. Re:Vaporware by cyberchondriac · · Score: 1

      It certainly wasn't cost: 1 billion USD to the Saudis should be a drop in the bucket.
      The ironic (?) thing is, they're well poised to provide energy to the world for the foreseeable future. Even when their oil wells run dry some day, they have all the sand and sun in the world: sand to make the silicon to make solar panels, and sun to power them. They're set.

      --

      Look back up at my post, now look back down, you're on the Internet. Now look back up. I'm a signature.
    5. Re:Vaporware by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You and everyone seem to be confused about how much spare cash the Saudis actually have.

      While they are a rich nation on a per citizen capita basis, they are not swimming in free cash. They already have many investments. Sure, they could sell those investments to fund this one, but that is an opportunity cost. The Vision fund doesn't have much *cash* left. And guess what... up until very recently the Saudis were already selling off investments to make up budget shortfalls. The boom and bust nature of oil means having cash reserves is not play money. It is necessary so that on down years they can keep paying the welfare that keeps the leaders in power.

      TLDR $1B is not "a drop in the bucket" for the Saudis.

  3. Smart Move by 110010001000 · · Score: 2

    They burn about 800,000 barrels of oil per day just for electrical generation. Oil is plentiful and cheap. Go with what you know!

    1. Re:Smart Move by rtb61 · · Score: 2

      Interest rates are low, money is cheap. So you get a higher rate of return by buying a piece of worthless land and putting solar panels on it, a better return than bank interest and the tax write offs means it is tax free. In the current economic climate solar panels provides a pretty solid return. Low interests rates makes all renewables a pretty good investment, just depends how long they will stay low. Solar provides a pretty good return upon land that would otherwise have very little value.

      Fossil fuels are doomed, just a harsh reality, the worst one to go first ie coal.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    2. Re:Smart Move by Crashmarik · · Score: 0

      Yeah the people burning wood apparently haven't heard your sage words

      https://www.acs.org/content/ac...

      Nor has China which is still building new coal plants

      https://www.nytimes.com/2017/0...

      Hey please don't let reality interfere with your fantasy

    3. Re:Smart Move by 110010001000 · · Score: 1

      If that was true, a lot of people would be doing it. Oddly no one is (including you). So you must be mistaken.

    4. Re:Smart Move by currently_awake · · Score: 2

      The oil will run out eventually. Covering the country with solar power would give them an export once the oil runs out, and allow the house of Saud to remain wealthy.

    5. Re:Smart Move by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      solar cells are less efficient in high temps. Saudi is very sunny but way too hot. There are better places for a solar farm. However it would be a good place to put a small environmentally friendly nuclear energy reactor. Plus they are controlled by one family that can make decisions and make it happen. Its not like the United States where everyone is heading off in different directions and nothing gets done. Saudi could be the Henry Ford of nuclear energy. Shipping small modular safe efficient reactors to people all over the world once the fossil fuels become scarce.

      The world needs cheap energy. Solar cells and windmills are great for small isolated outpost that don't need a huge amount of power and don't have access to the grid. However nuclear energy is a much better way to power civilization.

    6. Re:Smart Move by denzacar · · Score: 2

      Nor has China which is still building new coal plants

      Except the actual and up to date source of the info in your article points otherwise.
      https://www.carbonbrief.org/gu...

      Planned new coal capacity has been cancelled around the world, with particularly rapid falls in China and India.
      At the end of 2015, China had plans to build 515GW of new coal capacity. That figure now stands at 76GW. In India, the pre-construction pipeline has shrunk from 218GW in 2015 to 63GW today.

      That's the main reason Chinese companies are scrambling around the world trying to sell their coal plants.
      They already had them in the pipeline and now they can't just scrap billions of dollars already built into steam turbines.
      So they are trying to get rid of them elsewhere while there's still time.

      Coal is simply no longer economical.

      Most notably, our figures show that less than 2GW of new coal capacity has been proposed in either China or India in 2018 - a significant development for the two countries that have been the site of 85% of the world's new coal power capacity since 2006.

      While some analysts predicted the drop in China and India might be replaced with an increase throughout other parts of the world, the pipeline across the rest of the world also continues to decline.
      Notably, Japan has called off 3.6GW of proposed coal capacity since 2017, while South Korea will stop issuing permits for new coal plants. ...
      From January through to June 2018, nearly 20GW of new coal capacity was commissioned: 12GW in China (blue area in the chart, below) , 5GW in India (red), and 3GW in the rest of the world (South Africa, Pakistan, Vietnam, Philippines and Japan).
      While significant, the amount of coal power capacity that began operating during the first half of 2018 (20GW) was nearly matched by the amount retired (16GW), for a net increase of just 4GW - the slowest rate of growth on record.
      If the slowdown continues global coal capacity should peak by 2022, if not sooner.

      Gas is cheap, solar is cheaper, wind is cheapest... it's simply no longer profitable to mine and burn coal.

      --
      Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
    7. Re:Smart Move by Luckyo · · Score: 1, Offtopic

      All of that is cute and all, and utter fantasy. Reality is, China is (supposedly secretly, but satellites exist and there are groups monitoring them) building new coal power en masse. BBC had a good story on this just a couple of days ago.

      Activists desperate to keep narrative under control obviously keep doing the damage control, good example being your forbes links.

    8. Re: Smart Move by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 0

      Soalr cells are "less efficient" in hot places, yet you propose to put a *heat engine*, of all things, into a hot place.

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    9. Re:Smart Move by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      15% of X is better than 20% of X/2.

    10. Re:Smart Move by tinkerton · · Score: 1

      If you're Saudi, interest rates are high. They're broke.

    11. Re:Smart Move by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I suspect demand will run out before supply.

    12. Re:Smart Move by Crashmarik · · Score: 1

      Yeah coal is so uneconomical

      https://qz.com/1404934/chinas-...

      https://www.chinadialogue.net/...

      Oh apparently you are just as knowledgeable about the profitability of mining coal

      https://www.montelnews.com/en/...

      U.S. Exports expected to be up 60% in 2018 go figure.

    13. Re:Smart Move by dunkelfalke · · Score: 1

      Coal is slowly becoming uneconomical for electricity production but it is absolutely essential for primary steelmaking in a blast furnace.

      --
      "It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
    14. Re:Smart Move by denzacar · · Score: 1

      Activists desperate to keep narrative under control obviously keep doing the damage control, good example being your forbes links.

      Yeah... Forbes... that bastion of activism.
      But good job on revealing yourself as a moron AND a conspiracy loon there, with those secret Chinese coal plants - as if they could hide produced power.
      Thanks.

      --
      Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
    15. Re:Smart Move by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Yeah... Forbes... that bastion of activism.
      But good job on revealing yourself as a moron

      You almost got it. Forbes is a bastion of moronism. The magazine and core content are real but most of the content on Forbes.com is unvetted op-eds... and they are almost universally garbage.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    16. Re:Smart Move by Shotgun · · Score: 1

      Why would they use solar cells? Photovoltaics are not the cheapest way to get energy from the sun on an industrial scale. Concentrated solar into molten salt storage would be the only sane way to build a generation plant this large.

      --
      Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
      Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
    17. Re: Smart Move by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The heat engine works around the clock, while high temperatures degrade the already low solar capacity factor. Temperature is relative, and the loss will be small with high temperature reactors, typically operating at >550C. Such reactors can be placed anywhere on earth.

      Siting of low-temperature (~300C) water-cooled reactors is more limited with a bit greater loss, yet still more attractive than harvesting diffuse stochastic energy flows.

    18. Re: Smart Move by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      You have to first invent your high-temperature reactors. And build a manufacturing line for them. So far, they're not operating anywhere. And your "already low capacity factor" is actually still rather high in the region even after accounting for the temperature factor.

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    19. Re:Smart Move by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      Photovoltaics are not the cheapest way to get energy from the sun on an industrial scale.

      Actually, they already are. And without some serious progress in CSP plant technology, they will most likely stay being the cheapest way.

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    20. Re:Smart Move by Crashmarik · · Score: 1

      Coal is slowly becoming uneconomical for electricity production but it is absolutely essential for primary steelmaking in a blast furnace.

      If you are making good steel you are using electricity you need finer control of carbon content.

    21. Re:Smart Move by Luckyo · · Score: 1

      They're not looking to hide produced power. They're just looking to hide the fact that they're being made, as to help with negotiations. This isn't really news, as China operates like this on many fronts. They weren't straight up hiding what they were doing on the man made islands in South China Sea, a much more controversial and contested area. They just looked for plausible deniability for as long as there was some chance that this could go the other way.

      Same goes for coal plants being built. While they're being built, people like you and your activist allies you cite on completely unvetted op-ed section of forbes will provide ideological and propagandistic protection for them.

      Btw, here's BBC link, since you appear to be unaware about it, which I find highly doubtful if you have any awareness of the subject, as it brought up quite a stink and self-doubt in circles you claim to be your own:
      https://www.bbc.com/news/scien...

    22. Re:Smart Move by denzacar · · Score: 1

      Umm.. no.

      Sorry, I'm lazy.
      I'll just link to the other part of the thread where I point out and explain that you are basing your assumptions on faulty reading of data.

      I.e. BBC is wrong. People they are quoting say so.

      --
      Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
    23. Re:Smart Move by Luckyo · · Score: 1

      People they are quoting are activists. They obviously say so, because this confirms the problems with Paris agreement, and Paris agreement is widely embraced by them for ideological reasons.

      Problem being, this one confirms the point they really didn't want confirmed, that Paris agreement giving China blank cheque to build more CO2 emitting power generation for upcoming years until 2030 (iirc) cut off. Hence "we confirmed it, but we don't really believe it".

      First part of that sentence is a fact. Second is opinion. The fact that you prefer to use latter to deny the former is telling.

  4. Sounds like a good idea by Arzaboa · · Score: 1

    Seems that the best thing any country can do, is invest in energy that would last the people for the rest of their lives. Isn't this their main business now? $1 billion USD, seems cheap if that gets them 200GW of energy piped to the people.

    --
    Building a better mousetrap merely results in smarter mice. - Charles Darwin

    1. Re:Sounds like a good idea by commodore64_love · · Score: 2

      1 billion was just Phase One. They'd have to spend several billion more to actually Do the project (buy land, buy panels, install panels). - Also "last the rest of their lives"? Solar panels lose efficiency with age.

      - They drop to 80% after 25 years, at which point they are meant to be replaced (25 =/= typical human span of 75-to-80). I recall a solar panel I bought in 1985 to power a little toy windmill..... day after day the windmill spun, but after 10 years the panel had degraded to where it lacked the juice to spin.

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    2. Re:Sounds like a good idea by Arzaboa · · Score: 1

      Even it they spent a trillion dollars on a solar farm, @ 80% return after 25 years on 4x their annual capacity, it still works out to make sense.

      --
      Of course, you don't have to take *my* word for it - LeVar Burton

    3. Re:Sounds like a good idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe they realized the plan being too simplistic compared to the reality. Solar thermal might be a better option in some sense, as well as things like bio-gas, or other plant based synthetic oil sources. Desert might a punishing place for anything mechanical and the panels require constant maintenance. They might have ignored any required grid changes and the storage of energy as well. And maybe they want to try wind energy at the Red Sea and the Gulf as well.

    4. Re:Sounds like a good idea by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 2

      - They drop to 80% after 25 years, at which point they are meant to be replaced (25 =/= typical human span of 75-to-80)
      No, it is not meant to be replaced. That would only make sense if the efficiency had drastically improved, e.g. the new panels give 130% or more power than the original ones.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    5. Re:Sounds like a good idea by careysub · · Score: 2

      Bio-fuels are not the solution to anything (unless you are reclaiming a waste stream that would otherwise be burned or something).

      Photosynthesis is less than 1% efficient in producing electricity. Commercial solar cells are currently 21% efficient.

      --
      Starships were meant to fly, Hands up and touch the sky - Nicky Minaj
    6. Re: Sounds like a good idea by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      That's probably because you bought a toy solar panel to match it. But even back then, you could have bought a non-toy one.

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
  5. They have cheap gasoline by commodore64_love · · Score: 5, Insightful

    $2 per gallon. It's hard to justify installing expensive solar panels, when they can just burn gasoline instead.

    --
    "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    1. Re:They have cheap gasoline by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't how much galon of gaz cost!

      I take public transit. A local bus take me down the street to pick up the express bus, the express bus drops me off in Palo Alto, and a local bus take me down the street to my job.

      No? You don't ever look out the window as you pass a gas station?

      Sheesh. And my wife says I'm oblivous.

      I don't drive in India either, I get driven everywhere, but I still know how much a litre of petrol – amongst other things – costs there.

    2. Re:They have cheap gasoline by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hard to justify if you think the way things are, are always going to be the way they will be. But if you think that way, it's hard to justify that way of thinking, other than just being lazy.

    3. Re:They have cheap gasoline by guacamole · · Score: 1

      2 dollars a gallon is not cheap.

    4. Re: They have cheap gasoline by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      Just be glad there aren't more Europeans here to gang up on you and thrash you thoroughly for that brain fart.

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    5. Re:They have cheap gasoline by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      Gasoline is almost perfectly fungible. Everyone has access to cheap gasoline if their respective government decides to reduce the high taxes on it.

    6. Re:They have cheap gasoline by blind+biker · · Score: 1

      Gasoline? Most definitely not. Saudi Arabia gets nearly all its electrical energy from crude oil and natural gas burning. They are now building nuclear power plants, but for the foreseeable future, natural gas and crude oil is their primary source of electrical energy.

      Gasoline absolutely not.

      --
      "The agriculture ministry is not in charge of Gundam" - Japanese ministry official.
    7. Re:They have cheap gasoline by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Try paying $8, Yank.

    8. Re:They have cheap gasoline by Agripa · · Score: 1

      $2 per gallon. It's hard to justify installing expensive solar panels, when they can just burn gasoline instead.

      Think of the opportunity cost instead. How much would they make selling the gasoline to others instead of burning it themselves.

  6. They realized they can't dig for sunshine by Snotnose · · Score: 0

    No way to prevent the plebes from accessing those nasty sun rays, so they can't make money for doing nothing.

    Can we now do a Trump and proclaim them Persona Not Grata? If you buy/sell their oil you can't trade with us. At least until they join the 20th century. I'll settle for that, give them a while to join the 21st century.

    Farking barbarians, got lucky with the oil.

  7. Competition? Yeah right. by geekmux · · Score: 1

    "Everyone is just hoping this whole idea would just die," a Saudi energy official familiar with the matter was quoted as saying.

    Was it the oil sheikhs ritual of bathing in bathtubs full of crude oil that gave this idea a hint of doubt? Just curious.

    1. Re: Competition? Yeah right. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Better than their regular ideas about towing an iceberg to solve their water problems or curing cancer with frankincense.

      But they decided more American missiles to shoot at dissidents would be preferable.

  8. Re: APK Hosts File Engine for MacOS... apk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    1) You are APK.

    2) The original comment about Jews was also posted by APK.

    3) APK has been posting anti-semitic comments for two decades, dating back to at least his time on ArsTechnica as AlecStaar.

    4) The posts about Jews are off-topic spam.

    5) Don't like the Hosts File Engine posts? Great! Every time you post your anti-semitic spam, I'll reply with the Hosts File Engine posts. Deal with it.

  9. Never trust the Saudis. by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 1

    Elon took their word and ended up in the mess. He was naive babe in the woods to these wolves.

    --
    sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
    1. Re:Never trust the Saudis. by PseudoAnon · · Score: 1

      Are you blaming the Saudis for Elon Musk blatantly breaking the law with his market-manipulating Twitter post? Or are you referring to something else?

    2. Re:Never trust the Saudis. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No he's blaming the SEC for manipulating the market.

      That drop and bounce back in stock price made somebody very happy.

    3. Re:Never trust the Saudis. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually he never broke the law with that post, according to his agreement with the SEC. He did pay for it.

    4. Re:Never trust the Saudis. by necro81 · · Score: 1

      Elon took their word and ended up in the mess. He was naive babe in the woods to these wolves.

      What got Elon in trouble wasn't trusting the Saudis. His mistake was running his mouth off on twitter, and his overarching desire to stick it to the shorts.

    5. Re:Never trust the Saudis. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The SEC is not a prosecutor nor a court of law and doesn't get to decide if Musk "broke the law". The SEC is not pursing the case further but that doesn't mean other organizations can't and it doesn't mean he didn't break the law.

      If I punch someone in the face for no reason I broke the law, regardless of if I get charged, convicted, ect.

      In fact, the case the SEC filed specifically states the exact laws that Elon broke and their assertion that he did break those laws. His settlement of the CIVIL case with the SEC and that they withdrew their complain doesn't change the fact that he broke the law any more than any other settlement would mean he didn't break the law.

    6. Re:Never trust the Saudis. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It seems like it paid off pretty well for him.
      1. it only personally cost him 20 million, which in context to him isnt a lot but to any shorts that lost their shirt, their world ended
      2. It only cost tesla 20 million, which again, is not that much if they are breaking profitability
      3. Elon needed help and this forces him and Tesla to install some. Even if it wasn't intended, it is a win/win for them
      4. Tesla's stock has rebounded so any other shorts are getting burned again
      5. I think this is key, Elon will come out of all of this looking like a winner, which will feed his ego and the Tesla mythos, like the cult of personality Jobs had.

      You have to remember Jobs had legal issues with the SEC all his own with the backdating options scandal and the naysayers at the time were calling it the end of Apple, demanding his head, saying they were going to fail, wanting to short, bring back Scully, sell the company to Dell, Windows Longhorn will own the next OS X, BSD is dying, The HPV vaccine kills.

  10. 640 gigawatts... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    640 gigawatts ought to be enough for anybody.

  11. Re: APK Hosts File Engine for MacOS... apk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You are https://hardware.slashdot.org/... and a song about you https://www.youtube.com/watch?... hohohohoho!

  12. Re: APK Hosts File Engine for MacOS... apk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ROTFLMAO that song about sums them up.

  13. Re: APK Hosts File Engine for MacOS... apk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's ironic how APK attacks others for posting anonymously or pseudonymously, yet he doesn't have the courage to sign his anti-semitic spam with his initials. What a chickenshit.

  14. Re: APK Hosts File Engine for MacOS... apk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ironic you say posting anonymously is bad though you do it. Hypocrite jew. That song is funny and sounds like you. Hahahaha!

  15. Re: APK Hosts File Engine for MacOS... apk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I never said posting anonymously is bad. I called your hypocrisy about anonymous posting.

    You are Alexander Peter Kowalski and everyone knows it.

  16. Re: And, you are (read the end, lol) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You are APK. You and c6gunner are both Nazis, two peas in a pod.

  17. Re: And, you are (read the end, lol) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    APK's hatred of c6gunner is actually repressed sexual frustration. APK is butthurt that c6gunner rejected his sexual advances.

  18. Re: And, you are (read the end, lol) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You know you are https://hardware.slashdot.org/... and you said it not nazis.

  19. Re:APK Hosts File Engine for MacOS... apk by careysub · · Score: 2

    Why doesn't Slashdot block repetitive spam cr@p like this? It is the same posts over and over, day after day. This is a five minute exercise in Perl to kill this spam.

    Might it cause the spam to mutate? It might, but the spam-message is clear and can be detected and blocked.

    --
    Starships were meant to fly, Hands up and touch the sky - Nicky Minaj
  20. Gas is going to become worthless by rsilvergun · · Score: 2

    in about 20-30 years as solar, nuke & wind take over. The rest of the world is tired of worrying about the Middle East going crazy and bowing to their royals. Saudi Arabia for their part know this and are trying to figure out how to modernize. That's why they let women drive, they want them in the work force being productive and bringing cash in for the ruling class.

    Right now Saudi Arabia has a modern army thanks to weapons purchased with oil money. Take the oil money away and that won't last, and the decades of pissing all over their neighbors will bite them hard. Again, they're well aware of this and are trying to pivot. The hard parts going to be that they've used religious conservatism to keep their poor in check and they're pushing back against modernization.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
  21. Re:Jews put our world on strangleHOLD by careysub · · Score: 1

    Can't Slashdot put in some type of cr@p filters? Why do we have to scroll past huge walls of racist spam that is exactly the same day after day?

    --
    Starships were meant to fly, Hands up and touch the sky - Nicky Minaj
  22. "Reclaim the desert, one solar panel at a time!" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Perhaps the sand under the solar panels, in the shade, will be a better environment for life to grow. Imagine -- we place solar panels, thinking they're "forever" but we have to keep moving them (or putting new ones up) and by doing so, we keep reclaiming the desert!

  23. Re: Jews put our world on strangleHOLD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There is a lameness filter, which was modified to limit APK's spam. It isn't effective because APK is obsessed with spamming Slashdot. And yes, he is responsible for the anti-semitic spam you see. He just doesn't have the balls to admit it.

  24. Re: APK Hosts File Engine for Linux/BSD... apk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "to hide fact on jews"

    Your accent is showing.

  25. mod5 CAPTCHA: mooned by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I guess /. needs to stop posting stories critical of S.A.

  26. No shit? by superdave80 · · Score: 1

    entry into the solar market is being hampered by high costs

    Who knew that a high-priced energy system cost a lot?

    1. Re:No shit? by Luckyo · · Score: 1

      It's actually not about costs. Those could be managed. The problem is that Saudis are currently massively overextended on the infrastructure projects in terms of actual ability of the state to manage them. With Bin Salman's megacity project in North-West of the country, even strategic upgrades like port facilities in Jeddah are getting stalled. Saudi bureaucracy is inefficient, and there's only so much that it can manage at a time.

      This appears to be one of the many projects that simply is so low on the priority list, it was never even started, making it an easy target to drop due to the sheer amount of ongoing infrastructure projects that are far more critical for Saudi interests.

  27. Re:Jews put our world on strangleHOLD by imidan · · Score: 2

    I feel like it would be pretty easy to identify some statistical characteristics of this type of spam. For one thing, it's really long compared to a real comment. Basic token frequency analysis would probably show it to be clearly different from typical real comments.

    One of the admins could pick out a bunch of obvious spam like this, GNAA, the weird shitposts I've seen recently describing the events of someone's day that looks Markov generated. There's plenty of volume of it, and it should be pretty easy to find by reviewing -1 comments. Gather it up (with legitimate posts for comparison) into a corpus and feed it into a Bayesian filter and use the results to power an automoderator. At first, the automod mods spam to -1. Let users metamod the automod to weed out false positives (but with the spam content being so significantly different from real content, I feel like the classification should be pretty good).

    Let that go on for a while until they're satisfied with automod's performance, and then set the automod to mod spam down to -2. Don't allow normal users to mod to -2. Don't allow -2 posts to be further moderated. Add -2 to the message filtering controls, with -2 messages being hidden by default. If we collectively agreed to ignore -2 posts, then we have created a system that effectively shitcans spam, even though it's still there, by making it invisible. Spammers can continue to post crazy racism, and it will just flow into a gutter that we made for it. Users can continue to metamod automod, so we could continue to catch false positives.

    One weakness is that modding to -2 makes it obvious that the automod caught a post, and a clever spammer could use that fact to refine their post to avoid automod. But we throttle anonymous posts, so that might be hard to do. I guess you could come up with some more elaborate shadowban system, so it appeared to the spam poster that their message was up, but it sounds like a lot more work for not much payoff.

  28. Re: Jews put our world on strangleHOLD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Relevant: the only two words in the English language that contain the substring 'apk' are 'napkin' and 'napkins'. Outside those two cases, is it possible that the lameness filter could have an eye out for that substring? Just a thought.

  29. Back to the normal business by Chrisq · · Score: 1

    Back to the normal business of oppressing women and minorities and attempting to islamise the west.

  30. Re:A tree leans forward by Maritz · · Score: 1

    So you're writing this from the yard?

    --
    I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
  31. Why is it on hold exactly? by Maritz · · Score: 1

    Someone spot a woman looking at a book?

    --
    I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
  32. gigawatts of energy? by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 1

    And here I thought that "gigawatts" were a unit of power (energy/time)...

    I remember reading some SF back in the day where the author used the phrase "(metric prefix)watts of energy" a lot. Always made me want to smack him one....

    --

    "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    1. Re:gigawatts of energy? by someoneOtherThanMe · · Score: 1

      Also, there will be approximately 4000 days "by 2030", so generating three days' worth of energy is about one thousandth of country's needs, not really impressive I'd say.

  33. Solar isn't a slam dunk (yet) by sjbe · · Score: 1

    So you get a higher rate of return by buying a piece of worthless land and putting solar panels on it, a better return than bank interest and the tax write offs means it is tax free.

    Getting a higher rate of return than bank interest making at least some amount of profit. Just buying solar panels and some otherwise unused land doesn't automatically equal profit. Solar panel installations have a large up front capital cost which has to be recouped over a period of YEARS. Breakeven isn't going to happen immediately even in the best of circumstances. I don't think I've ever seen a solar installation with a breakeven faster than 5 years and over 10 isn't uncommon.

    Tax incentives on solar can help reduce tax burden IF you manage to make a profit but they don't (generally) eliminate tax altogether and certainly not in perpetuity. If the solar installation isn't profitable tax incentives might ease the pain slightly but they aren't going to make a business profitable that wouldn't be otherwise.

    Low interests rates makes all renewables a pretty good investment, just depends how long they will stay low.

    If your business model depends on continued low interest rates in order to profit on solar then it is a bad business model. Low interest rates can help boost profit but if your profit depends on them then the business will fail the moment interest rates rise.

    Solar provides a pretty good return upon land that would otherwise have very little value.

    Solar panels CAN provide a good ROI but it's hardly a foregone conclusion. The financial math that goes into making that happen is quite a lot more complicated than you are making it out to be. The good news is that the cost of solar power technology is dropping fast so the ROI math is looking better all the time.

    Fossil fuels are doomed, just a harsh reality, the worst one to go first ie coal.

    Sadly this isn't a foregone conclusion either. Fossil fuels are plentiful and our existing infrastructure depends heavily on them and there is no mechanism to get them to pay for much of the pollution they generate. Plus they are heavily subsidized to the tune of about $5 trillion annually. Getting ride of them essentially means tearing out massive amounts of infrastructure globally and replacing it. That isn't going to happen unless the alternative that replaces them is a slam dunk better option financially speaking. I'm hopeful some combination of solar/wind/nuclear can get us to that happen state of affairs but with the amount of money behind the fossil fuel industry they aren't going to go quietly into the night.

  34. These people... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... are not to be trusted... they bought up the electric car and then destroyed it... now the are fopping/fooling the world by making them believe they gonna supply electricity LOL.

  35. Yawn... look up sources. by denzacar · · Score: 2

    Your article comes from CoalSwarm.

    CoalSwarm, a global network of researchers tracking fossil-fuel infrastructure, analyzed satellite imagery as of July 2018, and discovered that the construction of around half of those 150 plants is still proceeding, despite the government orders.

    Just like that OP NYT article, which sources Urgewald, which again, sources CoalSwarm Database.

    We also included companies listed in the CoalSwarm Database as they are planning new coal power plants.

    Getting that? Got that? Good.

    Now go read the very first line in the link I quoted above, debunking those numbers. Well... putting them in context.
    It goes kinda like this...

    Dr Christine Shearer is a researcher and analyst for the US-based energy research group CoalSwarm.

    The stuff you're quoting is accounted for - AND THE COAL PLANT NUMBERS ARE STILL DECREASING.

    As for this...

    U.S. Exports expected to be up 60% in 2018 go figure.

    Again... actually reading the article and looking up sources helps to put things in context.

    (Montel) US seaborne thermal coal exports could surge 60% this year amid a shortfall in global supply and healthy import demand, the director of consultancy Perret Associates told Montel on Wednesday.
    Guillaume Perret estimated the country's coal exports could rise from 36.7m tonnes in 2017 to 58m tonnes this year and 60m tonnes in 2019.

    You are relying on predictions of a consulting firm which lives and dies with coal. So take that in consideration when you ask yourself if they are biased.
    https://www.perretassociates.c...

    Now scroll down to the bottom of the text where they try to sneak past the ugly truth.

    Meanwhile, he said domestic coal demand in the US "will be flat at best, or erode slightly" over the coming years.
    And demand from Europe is also on the wane, with the EU-15 countries expected to import just 90.2m tonnes of seaborne thermal coal this year versus 107m tonnes last year.

    I.e. Even people selling you coal are admitting, though "hiding" it in last lines of the text, that the demand for their product has peeked and is on decline.

    --
    Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
    1. Re:Yawn... look up sources. by Crashmarik · · Score: 1

      Your article comes from CoalSwarm.

      Says the man who quoted an article quoting a report from IRENA
      the international renewable agency ?

    2. Re:Yawn... look up sources. by denzacar · · Score: 1

      Reading comprehension not your forte, eh?

      The source you quoted is using data from CoalSwarm.
      The source I quoted is from a CoalSwarm RESEARCHER AND ANALYST. You know... the person who actually puts all that data together.
      And who, unlike various "journalists" out there - actually knows what she's talking about and what all that data actually shows.

      I.e. It's the same source, but mine actually knows what she's talking about.

      --
      Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
    3. Re:Yawn... look up sources. by Crashmarik · · Score: 1

      I.e. It's the same source, but mine actually knows what she's talking about.

      This is called cherry picking. Can you say that ? "Cherry Picking" I knew you could.

  36. Re:APK Hosts File Engine for MacOS... apk by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

    If the spam filter gets too aggressive it stops legitimate posts. There are solutions like beynesian filtering, but it's easier to just let such stuff get modded down to -1.

    --
    const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
    SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
  37. Re: APK Hosts File Engine for Linux/BSD... apk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No that is just APK's shit grammar. He can barely manage to string 2 words together coherently on the best of days. You see he has gotten stomped on pretty hard lately so now APK is posting unsigned to make it look like he has support because he is just a giant pussy that can't defend himself or his ideas from valid criticism. He is probably pissing himself in the corner now wishing his mother hand't fled back to Poland to live out her retirement dream of not having to care for her retarded man child of a son.

  38. Beacuase by nightfire-unique · · Score: 1

    A lot of people don't realize that Saudi Arabia has over 50 degrees of celsius per day!

    And when your trucks move at a rate of 500,000km, it can be hard to cover enough distance. Plus, consider that the trucks have 300L fuel tanks, and produce over 1,000 horsepower per hour. That's a lot of something!

    --
    A government is a body of people notably ungoverned - AC
  39. Re:Quoted jew belief not racism: It's fact by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Have to say it, this is impressive. It's like seeing all of Facebook in just one post.

  40. Units? How do they work? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The solar project was expected to generate about 200 gigawatts of energy by 2030 -- more than three times the country's daily requirement.

  41. Re: APK Hosts File Engine for Linux/BSD... apk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Apk stomped you with facts and you ran after you impersonated him c6gunner https://science.slashdot.org/c...

  42. Re:APK Hosts File Engine for Linux/BSD... apk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0