1. Chargepoints can be fitted outside. Mine is 2. UK domestic charging can be 7kW (single-phase, 32A) or 22kW (three phase, rare but feasible esp for new build) 3. UK is 230V not 240V
OK, so far we've established that: 1. You are either unable or unwilling to provide any external evidence to back up your evidence, despite explicitly referring to anthropology in your original reply 2. Your favoured variety of ad hominem comes laced with sentiments designed to make you feel good about your superior knowledge ("I'm just sad...") 3. You think that the emergence of white skin is effectively demonstrates that "Humans as species are at their best when adapting to slow, ongoing changes to their environment"
That's quite the job you've done there. When you're up for actually learning about this subject, rather than dismissing concepts you don't like on the basis of knowledge you don't have about people's politics, here are four books on the topic: The Collapse of Ancient Societies, Joseph Tainter, Camb Univ Press, 1988 The Collapse of Ancient States and Civilisations, Yoffee and Cowgill, Tucson: Univ of Arizona Press, 1988 The Long Summer, Brian Fagan, New York: Basic Books, 2004 Historical Dynamics: Why States Rise and Fall, Peter Turchin, Princeton Univ Press, 2003
We have an n of 1 for non-very very low tech civilisations faced with our particular challenges, and the only migration that helps for global crises is space exploration.
Oh really? Care to share your brief survey of the anthropological literature that demonstrates your point, would you? Or are you just using a big word in the hope that it demonstrates your authority?
There's so much rich stupidity here, it's an overwhelming choice. I'll go for this one, which other commenters have left on the table: "Humans as species are at their best when adapting to slow, ongoing changes to their environment"
What a load of drivel. Humans are particularly shit at adapting to slow, ongoing changes to their environment. Our inability in this area was the prime cause for the collapse of many human civilisations. Water sources gradually ran dry, food sources got used up, soil became unproductive, etc.
Coo, you sound like you have real expertise. Interesting to hear that "most" plants don't publish their dispatchability. Because if you're correct, then a minority of plants do. So, care to provide a link to a single one? That's all I've been asking for from the outset.
Seems a reasonable assumption that they all are. But then you would expect to find descriptions of the performance spec of the dispatchability online, the same way you do for rated power capacity etc.
He also observed that geothermal led to increased seismicity. And that the toxins, shit and radioactive materials (what you called sludge) also goes into the atmosphere. And that the containment solutions that have in fact been used (vs the theoretical solution you suggest could be used) are not going to last because of seismic activity. And that the cleanups have already cost hundreds of millions. And that the plants don't produce as much power as promised. And that they cost more than promised.
You are only hearing what you want to hear. You are focusing on the things that people say where you believe you can "win". In this case, you focused on one statement out of seven.
Because the engineering hasn't been set up to enable it to be? Because it's designed to provide base-load? Because some obscure financial engineering calculation means that the NPV for keeping the plant running continuous is higher than for dispatchable ops? Who knows, plenty of reasons.
But all I asked was for an actual example. It can't be that hard, surely! I'm not trying to trick anyone, I genuinely want to know: are there examples of operating dispatchable geothermal plants? Seems like there should be, but I can't find any myself.
I know what dispatchable means. I also know there's a difference between theory and practice. I asked if you could provide any examples of geothermal plants which actually operate on a dispatchable basis because I wanted to know if there's any practice to go alongside the theory. You responded by telling me about the theory.
So rather than be snarky, how about coming up with the goods? I will accept with good grace any reasonable examples you provide (ie commercial, not exploratory).
I'm willing to stand corrected on geothermal if you can provide some links to examples of plants operating today that are dispatchable. I had a look and couldn't find any examples.
For nukes, not so much. There are no NuScale power plants operating commercially, and won't be till 2025. By then, battery tech will have advanced considerably, and it really isn't reasonable to critique solar and wind for being non-dispatchable while ignoring the fact that by then, there'll be a lot of solar / wind + battery storage, which provides instantly dispatchable power.
It's true we need dispatchable power. It's true that wind/solar are not dispatchable. But why talk about geo-thermal and nuke in that context? Neither of them are considered dispatchable: they're base-load precisely *because* they take ages to spin up and shut down. They may have characteristics you prefer to wind / solar, but whatever else you like about them, they don't offer dispatchability as a competitive advantage.
And, this article is all about battery storage... which turns non-dispatchable wind/solar into instantaneously dispatchable power.
Bending over while suckling and being stabbed in the back -- all at the same time! You Trumpkins certainly have a penchant for vivid imagery. Albeit stolen without attribution from Nazi predecessors sore about losing WWI. Your spiritual, political and moral predecessors too.
Note that for the first time in ever we have a businessman leading the country.
Here's the heart of the problem for you and a lot of your fellow travellers. You think Trump is a business man who is somehow representative of how business operates, who can bring the skills of business with him. But Trump runs a two-bit real estate operation. His business has none of the complexity of a Boeing, FedEx, Pfizer etc; his decision-making is a million miles from how decisions are made at actual MNCs. He's a dumbshit person's idea of what a businessman is. He's just been spending Pappy's bucks all these years, and not very well at that.
Losing money on meeting demand does not make demand irrelevant. Have you really never heard of the investor J-curve? Have you never heard of the concept of runway? None of this is to say that Tesla won't run out of runway. It may fail for any number of reasons. But for damn sure it needs customer demand, along with every other business in the world.
I'm really not stupid, and you really are. The consequences of not being able to meet specific demand in the long run will be... what, exactly? Oh yes, the demand goes away. And at some point thereafter the business fails. Because, per what I said at the outset, businesses need demand for their products if they wish to survive. If the demand dries up, they go bust.
I wasn't making my point in order to defend Tesla. I was pointing out the obvious stupidity of an argument that unsatisfied demand means a business is doomed. In doing so, I also didn't assert that the only thing a business requires to survive is unsatisfied demand. That would have been even more stupid. But there is a difference between necessary and sufficient, which appears to have flown right by you.
Slashdot Mirror
1. Chargepoints can be fitted outside. Mine is
2. UK domestic charging can be 7kW (single-phase, 32A) or 22kW (three phase, rare but feasible esp for new build)
3. UK is 230V not 240V
OK, so far we've established that:
1. You are either unable or unwilling to provide any external evidence to back up your evidence, despite explicitly referring to anthropology in your original reply
2. Your favoured variety of ad hominem comes laced with sentiments designed to make you feel good about your superior knowledge ("I'm just sad...")
3. You think that the emergence of white skin is effectively demonstrates that "Humans as species are at their best when adapting to slow, ongoing changes to their environment"
That's quite the job you've done there. When you're up for actually learning about this subject, rather than dismissing concepts you don't like on the basis of knowledge you don't have about people's politics, here are four books on the topic:
The Collapse of Ancient Societies, Joseph Tainter, Camb Univ Press, 1988
The Collapse of Ancient States and Civilisations, Yoffee and Cowgill, Tucson: Univ of Arizona Press, 1988
The Long Summer, Brian Fagan, New York: Basic Books, 2004
Historical Dynamics: Why States Rise and Fall, Peter Turchin, Princeton Univ Press, 2003
We have an n of 1 for non-very very low tech civilisations faced with our particular challenges, and the only migration that helps for global crises is space exploration.
Oh really? Care to share your brief survey of the anthropological literature that demonstrates your point, would you? Or are you just using a big word in the hope that it demonstrates your authority?
There's so much rich stupidity here, it's an overwhelming choice. I'll go for this one, which other commenters have left on the table: "Humans as species are at their best when adapting to slow, ongoing changes to their environment"
What a load of drivel. Humans are particularly shit at adapting to slow, ongoing changes to their environment. Our inability in this area was the prime cause for the collapse of many human civilisations. Water sources gradually ran dry, food sources got used up, soil became unproductive, etc.
Entirely possible. There's a lot of fuckwits out there, after all
The horror.
They won't allow you to own a tank either. Or a nuke.
Whatever *is* the world coming to?
Chance would be a fine thing.
Fill it so high that America gags, then drain it the tiniest bit and try to get everyone to ignore the stink of dried out shit around their necks.
Coo, you sound like you have real expertise. Interesting to hear that "most" plants don't publish their dispatchability. Because if you're correct, then a minority of plants do. So, care to provide a link to a single one? That's all I've been asking for from the outset.
Yeah I saw that. But it's an article about the future of geothermal, it says nothing about today's plants.
Seems a reasonable assumption that they all are. But then you would expect to find descriptions of the performance spec of the dispatchability online, the same way you do for rated power capacity etc.
He also observed that geothermal led to increased seismicity.
And that the toxins, shit and radioactive materials (what you called sludge) also goes into the atmosphere.
And that the containment solutions that have in fact been used (vs the theoretical solution you suggest could be used) are not going to last because of seismic activity.
And that the cleanups have already cost hundreds of millions.
And that the plants don't produce as much power as promised.
And that they cost more than promised.
You are only hearing what you want to hear. You are focusing on the things that people say where you believe you can "win". In this case, you focused on one statement out of seven.
Because the engineering hasn't been set up to enable it to be? Because it's designed to provide base-load? Because some obscure financial engineering calculation means that the NPV for keeping the plant running continuous is higher than for dispatchable ops? Who knows, plenty of reasons.
But all I asked was for an actual example. It can't be that hard, surely! I'm not trying to trick anyone, I genuinely want to know: are there examples of operating dispatchable geothermal plants? Seems like there should be, but I can't find any myself.
Sheesh.
I know what dispatchable means. I also know there's a difference between theory and practice. I asked if you could provide any examples of geothermal plants which actually operate on a dispatchable basis because I wanted to know if there's any practice to go alongside the theory. You responded by telling me about the theory.
So rather than be snarky, how about coming up with the goods? I will accept with good grace any reasonable examples you provide (ie commercial, not exploratory).
I'm willing to stand corrected on geothermal if you can provide some links to examples of plants operating today that are dispatchable. I had a look and couldn't find any examples.
For nukes, not so much. There are no NuScale power plants operating commercially, and won't be till 2025. By then, battery tech will have advanced considerably, and it really isn't reasonable to critique solar and wind for being non-dispatchable while ignoring the fact that by then, there'll be a lot of solar / wind + battery storage, which provides instantly dispatchable power.
It's true we need dispatchable power.
It's true that wind/solar are not dispatchable.
But why talk about geo-thermal and nuke in that context? Neither of them are considered dispatchable: they're base-load precisely *because* they take ages to spin up and shut down. They may have characteristics you prefer to wind / solar, but whatever else you like about them, they don't offer dispatchability as a competitive advantage.
And, this article is all about battery storage... which turns non-dispatchable wind/solar into instantaneously dispatchable power.
Bending over while suckling and being stabbed in the back -- all at the same time! You Trumpkins certainly have a penchant for vivid imagery. Albeit stolen without attribution from Nazi predecessors sore about losing WWI. Your spiritual, political and moral predecessors too.
Oh really? Sources please
Note that for the first time in ever we have a businessman leading the country.
Here's the heart of the problem for you and a lot of your fellow travellers. You think Trump is a business man who is somehow representative of how business operates, who can bring the skills of business with him. But Trump runs a two-bit real estate operation. His business has none of the complexity of a Boeing, FedEx, Pfizer etc; his decision-making is a million miles from how decisions are made at actual MNCs. He's a dumbshit person's idea of what a businessman is. He's just been spending Pappy's bucks all these years, and not very well at that.
It's amazing to think there are people who actually believe this type of crap.
Losing money on meeting demand does not make demand irrelevant. Have you really never heard of the investor J-curve? Have you never heard of the concept of runway? None of this is to say that Tesla won't run out of runway. It may fail for any number of reasons. But for damn sure it needs customer demand, along with every other business in the world.
I'm really not stupid, and you really are. The consequences of not being able to meet specific demand in the long run will be ... what, exactly? Oh yes, the demand goes away. And at some point thereafter the business fails. Because, per what I said at the outset, businesses need demand for their products if they wish to survive. If the demand dries up, they go bust.
I wasn't making my point in order to defend Tesla. I was pointing out the obvious stupidity of an argument that unsatisfied demand means a business is doomed. In doing so, I also didn't assert that the only thing a business requires to survive is unsatisfied demand. That would have been even more stupid. But there is a difference between necessary and sufficient, which appears to have flown right by you.
I didn't say it was sufficient. I said it was necessary.