Very often attacks are attempted at night, but that's a bad time, since load is often low.
Actually.... Low load means the system is much more likely to collapse. The power system has inertia in it, if the load is high, this inertia is high and there's a long time to respond before the system collapses. If on the other hand, you take out a couple of power stations when load is low, the frequency in the system will drop much faster, and it will be more difficult for the reserve mechanisms to respond in time.
I agree that if you cut a line during high load you'll be more likely to cause some people to lose power (in a semi-controlled fashion), but if you're really trying to cause the system to collapse, it's much easier to do it at night.
That's not a particularly helpful comparison, seeing as ass can be pronounced as "arse" or for "ass" as in donkey. For the record, it's Bass straight as in E=mass x c^2.
While extremely unlikely, the cost of XXXXXX is simply too high
I take it that you're a member of religious group Y then? Since the price of not being a member of religious group Y is very high (eternal damnation). Likewise, you'd better be a a member of religious group B.
There are two important considerations when making these sorts of decisions - the chance of occurance and the potential damage arising from that occurance. Only considering one side of the equation seems irresponsible.
It makes sense from an entirely selfish point of view also.
Some amazingly large percentage of all bankruptcies in the US are caused by inability to pay for medical bills. That cost gets passed on to the population. It seems reasonable that this happens in a less efficient method than if medical costs were paid for up front by the population.
Also, I don't want to get mugged by some guy who lost his house to pay for his sister's life saving kidney replacement.
A functioning society that look after its members is better for all members of the society.
That's why they're not using the incidence of heart disease as the determinant. They're using indicators such as blood pressure and cholesterol. Still a small sample sure but not worthless.
Ah ok, so you're referring to where wind farms are powered by seas breezes. The market I'm familiar with isn't in that situation, and there's really no corrrelation between wind generation and demand no matter how hard you look.
What's perhaps more interesting is the price when wind farms are generating. Generally when there's high demand the price is higher, but supply has an effect on this also (duh). However, supply traditionally hasn't had much effect on prices, since all generation was controllable, and could be scheduled around demand.
Wind (and other 'renewables' to a varying degree) changes this picture slightly. Wind is uncontrollable, and so you'd expect the price to be lower when the wind is blowing.
We do actually see that effect, power prices are typically 3-4% lower when wind is generating.
What this all adds up to is that wind farms are less valuable because there's wind farms.
That's one of the issues I alluded to. It's referred to as the carrying cost, but it's not an issue at small levels of wind penetration.
Wind farms are sensible provided they remain a sufficiently small proportion of total generation. The tricky bit is that a lot of the real costs of wind generation are externalized so it requires regulation to allow the market to properly account for this.
A type 1 wind site will get about 40% of maximum capacity on average. So a simple multiplier still puts wind farms a long way ahead on those numbers.
Of course there are other benefits to nuclear over wind and as the proportion of wind increases, the grid quickly becomes unstable. However at the current level of wind penetration that's not an issue, so wind farms are the better choice.
Slashdot Mirror
We lose more people to MRSA in the US than we do to murder and the WoT
Wheel of Time? I know those books take a long time to finish. Is it like the people who die from playing computer games for 72 hours straight?
Very often attacks are attempted at night, but that's a bad time, since load is often low.
Actually.... Low load means the system is much more likely to collapse. The power system has inertia in it, if the load is high, this inertia is high and there's a long time to respond before the system collapses. If on the other hand, you take out a couple of power stations when load is low, the frequency in the system will drop much faster, and it will be more difficult for the reserve mechanisms to respond in time.
I agree that if you cut a line during high load you'll be more likely to cause some people to lose power (in a semi-controlled fashion), but if you're really trying to cause the system to collapse, it's much easier to do it at night.
The hotel/motel gods also were highly upset that their revenues would be stanched, and so also did voice much objection up on the Muni-WiFi.
It feels wrong that the chance of me getting free wi-fi in my accomodation is inversely proportional to the price I paid for the room.
Bass rhymes with ass
That's not a particularly helpful comparison, seeing as ass can be pronounced as "arse" or for "ass" as in donkey. For the record, it's Bass straight as in E=mass x c^2.
We do.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accident_Compensation_Corporation
It's shit, but it still better than the alternatives.
If someone presents a well reasoned response rebutting your claim, just keep on repeating it. They'll give in eventually!
Denying valid claims... [is] just bad business sense
That's why they have 1001 valid ways to deny your claim.
Silicon isn't the expensive part of PV cells
I wonder how many times this exact jokes will get modded +5 in pigeon related stories.
While extremely unlikely, the cost of XXXXXX is simply too high
I take it that you're a member of religious group Y then? Since the price of not being a member of religious group Y is very high (eternal damnation). Likewise, you'd better be a a member of religious group B.
There are two important considerations when making these sorts of decisions - the chance of occurance and the potential damage arising from that occurance. Only considering one side of the equation seems irresponsible.
I've seen that movie!
It makes sense from an entirely selfish point of view also.
Some amazingly large percentage of all bankruptcies in the US are caused by inability to pay for medical bills. That cost gets passed on to the population. It seems reasonable that this happens in a less efficient method than if medical costs were paid for up front by the population.
Also, I don't want to get mugged by some guy who lost his house to pay for his sister's life saving kidney replacement.
A functioning society that look after its members is better for all members of the society.
You mean this?
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,519699,00.html
Or this?
http://www.startribune.com/local/east/16671951.html
It didn't happen in New Zealand. Probably because our police officers aren't armed in their regular duties.
+1 eerily prescient?
At least they know how to use a semi-colon.
I had to spend twice as long reading that because of the deliberate mistakes present.
As someone who's watched a loved one go through leukemia, I think it's pretty obvious that oath is selectively enforced.
That's why they're not using the incidence of heart disease as the determinant. They're using indicators such as blood pressure and cholesterol. Still a small sample sure but not worthless.
Ah ok, so you're referring to where wind farms are powered by seas breezes. The market I'm familiar with isn't in that situation, and there's really no corrrelation between wind generation and demand no matter how hard you look.
What's perhaps more interesting is the price when wind farms are generating. Generally when there's high demand the price is higher, but supply has an effect on this also (duh). However, supply traditionally hasn't had much effect on prices, since all generation was controllable, and could be scheduled around demand.
Wind (and other 'renewables' to a varying degree) changes this picture slightly. Wind is uncontrollable, and so you'd expect the price to be lower when the wind is blowing.
We do actually see that effect, power prices are typically 3-4% lower when wind is generating.
What this all adds up to is that wind farms are less valuable because there's wind farms.
That's one of the issues I alluded to. It's referred to as the carrying cost, but it's not an issue at small levels of wind penetration.
Wind farms are sensible provided they remain a sufficiently small proportion of total generation. The tricky bit is that a lot of the real costs of wind generation are externalized so it requires regulation to allow the market to properly account for this.
Which bit exactly? The 40% number is taken from real wind generation data I have sitting in front of me. It's all public domain stuff.
Quantum mechanics applies to large particles. Classical mechanics are merely an approximation of quantum mechanics when applied to large particles.
Wikipedia to the rescue
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correspondence_principle
A type 1 wind site will get about 40% of maximum capacity on average. So a simple multiplier still puts wind farms a long way ahead on those numbers.
Of course there are other benefits to nuclear over wind and as the proportion of wind increases, the grid quickly becomes unstable. However at the current level of wind penetration that's not an issue, so wind farms are the better choice.
Peak wind power usually occurs when the peak demand on the grid is occurring.
I'd be really interested if you could supply a source for this assertion.
Ah ha! Now we know who anonymous coward is.