You're probably going to need a skilled and experienced EE to maintain a system of such scale and to constantly upgrade it.
And an experienced EE can easily pull in double that wage a year without trying too hard. And that's not including benefits like company car, health insurance,....
Not nearly as much as you'd think. Switching is still the major source of power usage. If what you are saying was true we could just as well switch to bipolar again.
In complex systems as these the power usage is often a complex formula of several components. We can often model a relative simple formula for these "small" embedded systems anyway (think portable devices). Based on this the ideal operating frequency is determined to minimize power use while keeping the performance acceptable. This isn't related to multipliers or maximum frequencies most of the time. We design the system to operate near these optimal frequencies.
Sadly you're wrong there. We spend hours calculating the optimal frequency of systems in a lot of cases and then spend the rest of the day designing a PLL to work on that frequency. Believe me when I say you're not going to increase energy efficiency by overclocking the base setup without extensively modifying the hardware.
That's total bullshit. Power consumption of a CMOS can somewhat be seen as this (incomplete formula to leave out device specific constants): Power consumption ~ Frequency * Capacitance * VCC. In other words, if you increase the frequency and VCC stays constant you're just going to burn more power for an almost irrelevant increase in performance.
In fact I've read a lot more bullshit here but to address one more thing in specific: Most modern devices are made using CMOS technology or at the very least using FETs. A common misconception I see here is people assuming that CMOS devices use power while in a stable state. The fact is, they don't if they're well designed; The power being used is to charge the gates of the FETs. Once they're charged the only power use is to compensate for leakage currents from the FET gates to other parts of the substrate. If you don't believe me, build a small circuit using FETs (think something like a bunch of flip-flops), switch it a bit at a fairly high frequency. Stop the clock. Put a capacitor over your power supply. Then disconnect the circuit so its powered from the capacitor. It'll keep its state for weeks most likely.
How can you not know this as a grown up? Especially as a teacher. Honestly, everything except logarithms of decimal numbers isn't that hard once you figure out what's going on. Just requires some space in your memory and the ability to remember a number for a few iterations. On another note, this does say more about managers than about the difficulty of these tests.
I think the mail gods are angry at the academic community. Our mail server crashed as well last week. Took them a 4 days to get a backup server online. And another week to get the emails to the new server.
The main argument against nuclear power is safety. So number of deaths does not omit significant effects at all.
And I'm not reaching, in terms of mining damage done rare earth metals are in heavy demand due to the windmill industry. Before relative small quantities were needed. Mainly for manufacturing electronics and military applications. But the quantities needed by the windmill industry are so significant that the normal cautious procedure of mining for them has been waived to keep up with the demand.So yes, it is the fault of the windmill industry that this specific part of the mining industry has been causing problems for the environment. And do you really think engineers haven't thought of changing the gearbox? The actual issue is that moving something that large at those speeds through the air simply causes sound.
Contrary to popular believe uranium mining isn't nearly as polluting and dangerous as it is thought to be so that's not much of an issue. Now disposal is another funny problem. The thing is, the waste from one nuclear reactor can often be used as fuel for another. Sadly due to organisations like greenpeace pushing their program and people believing their sweet talk we're not able to build those reactors at commercial scale cause "oh no, it's nuclear!". The fun fact is that using a breeder reactor a lot of the radioactive danger can be eliminated in the long run. That's one thing you'll never find in the greenpeace brochure cause it doesn't really help their cause now does it?
Oh yes it does, most of the materials we use have no realistic alternative. Especially if you like clock cycles of 1 GHz and higher. Arsenides are also essential in the production of the LEDs that all these environmentally concious people like. And more than once we end up with a waste product that can't be processed in any realistic way. So there are two options at that point, dump it in the nearby river or store it (like is currently being done). I wouldn't call that a clean industry at all.
And you really didn't read my initial post did you? Photovoltaic is the only option in urbanised areas as you can't tear down people's houses for energy generation. Especially if it has such a bad turn over compared to the area being used. And the same counts for hydroelectric. And actually this is an argument about power generation, so yes it does matter. In an urbanised area there are two important factors when considering a power plant. Electric power generated by unit of area and chance of catastrophic failure. Nuclear scores the best on both of those. And to generate radioisotopes you don't strictly need a nuclear reactor but I'm not really sure why you included that argument. Could you please introduce a logical structure in your next response?
They are a good measure of safety. But the proponents of green energy do not wish to listen to them cause they don't realise how much damage their power sources actually cause. Sadly I must warn you about a few things. Wind mills often use rare earth metals in their construction. Leading to mining with a high degree of pollution. Now a hydroelectric dam requires disowning large pieces of land and destroys the nature in that area (doesn't sound green to me). And don't get me started on photovoltaic cells. Actually being involved in this industry to a certain degree as EE, and I could (and I will) start hanging out some of the dirty laundry. Semiconductor production is so toxic and destructive for the environment that it should be downright banned. It consumes large amounts of energy for starters. But this isn't the main problem actually. The materials used are, the least harmful material used is actually silicon. We clean our ovens with gasses that can set just about anything on fire and explodes on contact with water; We also use arsenic as if it's child's play. There is not a single industry (except for maybe gold mining) that causes so much damage to the environment as the semiconductor industry does. So yes, your environmentally friendly solar panels actually caused a wake of destruction in their manufacturing process.
That's where you're wrong.
You wish to argue about solar plants. I am arguing about putting solar panels on houses. Area is a severe restriction in Western-Europe. Find an area in Western-Europe that doesn't have a city in the immediate neighbourhood. It's pretty much impossible at this point. As such putting solar panels on roofs is an easy solution indeed. Loads of space there and they're out of the way. But they're largely useless during the winter and at night. So energy storage is a must have with photovoltaic systems. Heating water or salt (direct or indirectly) is indeed another way that is used in solar plants. But downscaling makes it useless. Now you can't reserve a few square kilometre for these things without having to throw somebody out of their house. And the energy generated / area unit is still very low compared to nuclear power. Due to this the space required can't be justified morally at all.
And actually, many power plants are very close to cities, harbours, and large industrial areas. If you wish to argue that isn't the case with nuclear reactors. Then you're also wrong. You'll often find a nuclear reactor within 50km of a city centre. In fact in Belgium you'll find one at a bit less than 20km from a city centre if memory serves right. And if you wish to know something that's probably going to terrify the heck out of you. Many of the RBMKs are still in use today (the type of reactor in the Chernobyl incident). With modifications mind you. The simple reason is that these reactors have such a high output that it's near impossible to replace them with anything but hydroelectric at large scale. The largest windmill farm on land takes up 400km ( http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/article/2009/10/ec-r-completes-780-mw-roscoe-wind-farm ) and only delivers 780MW at most. On the other hand the RBMK will output well over 1000MW using only a fraction of that land. Try competing with that using your green power.
That is actually not true, there are many underground streams that are worth looking at. But tapping these resources is quite the engineering challenge. And the implications of stopping such a stream for construction work isn't well known either.
If a 100m long piece of fibreglass makes it way through your bedroom in the middle of the night you'd laugh less.
I also forgot to mention the noise and the shadow from the rotating blades is pretty annoying to live with.
Those take up large spaces and due to that are not even a competition in highly urbanised areas with a lot of industrial activity (where the power is most needed). And stacking them on top of buildings -while theoretically feasible- brings up other issues; As the winds there are highly unpredictable combined with the building moving and oscillating due to the wind making aiming the mirrors troublesome. I wouldn't want to be charged with the task of designing a system like that at all.
Another issue with solar based systems in Europe is that it's pretty much impossible to reach maximum output except for maybe 2-3 months a year during summer. So in the summer you'd have a severe over capacity on the grid, while in the winter you'd be struggling to keep up with the demand (heating). And transporting electricity over large distances is hard considering the losses on the lines. And increasing the voltage even further isn't an option either.
As such I stand by my point that solar based systems are inefficient for use in most of Europe (with the exception of Portugal, Spain, Italy and Greece).
Slashdot Mirror
They released a sequel to that crappy game?
I'm talking global average wages actually for senior EEs actually...
You're probably going to need a skilled and experienced EE to maintain a system of such scale and to constantly upgrade it. ....
And an experienced EE can easily pull in double that wage a year without trying too hard. And that's not including benefits like company car, health insurance,
Not nearly as much as you'd think. Switching is still the major source of power usage. If what you are saying was true we could just as well switch to bipolar again.
In complex systems as these the power usage is often a complex formula of several components. We can often model a relative simple formula for these "small" embedded systems anyway (think portable devices). Based on this the ideal operating frequency is determined to minimize power use while keeping the performance acceptable. This isn't related to multipliers or maximum frequencies most of the time. We design the system to operate near these optimal frequencies.
Nevermore...
It doesn't work that way sadly.
Sadly you're wrong there. We spend hours calculating the optimal frequency of systems in a lot of cases and then spend the rest of the day designing a PLL to work on that frequency. Believe me when I say you're not going to increase energy efficiency by overclocking the base setup without extensively modifying the hardware.
That's total bullshit. Power consumption of a CMOS can somewhat be seen as this (incomplete formula to leave out device specific constants): Power consumption ~ Frequency * Capacitance * VCC. In other words, if you increase the frequency and VCC stays constant you're just going to burn more power for an almost irrelevant increase in performance.
In fact I've read a lot more bullshit here but to address one more thing in specific: Most modern devices are made using CMOS technology or at the very least using FETs. A common misconception I see here is people assuming that CMOS devices use power while in a stable state. The fact is, they don't if they're well designed; The power being used is to charge the gates of the FETs. Once they're charged the only power use is to compensate for leakage currents from the FET gates to other parts of the substrate. If you don't believe me, build a small circuit using FETs (think something like a bunch of flip-flops), switch it a bit at a fairly high frequency. Stop the clock. Put a capacitor over your power supply. Then disconnect the circuit so its powered from the capacitor. It'll keep its state for weeks most likely.
Still easy, considering 280 = 7 times 40, so you have 8 divided by 4 resulting in two with a shift to right due to division by 10. :P
How can you not know this as a grown up? Especially as a teacher. Honestly, everything except logarithms of decimal numbers isn't that hard once you figure out what's going on. Just requires some space in your memory and the ability to remember a number for a few iterations. On another note, this does say more about managers than about the difficulty of these tests.
Cause else students are forced to use unreliable services meaning you can't ensure e-mails arrive at location.
I think the mail gods are angry at the academic community. Our mail server crashed as well last week. Took them a 4 days to get a backup server online. And another week to get the emails to the new server.
The main argument against nuclear power is safety. So number of deaths does not omit significant effects at all.
And I'm not reaching, in terms of mining damage done rare earth metals are in heavy demand due to the windmill industry. Before relative small quantities were needed. Mainly for manufacturing electronics and military applications. But the quantities needed by the windmill industry are so significant that the normal cautious procedure of mining for them has been waived to keep up with the demand.So yes, it is the fault of the windmill industry that this specific part of the mining industry has been causing problems for the environment. And do you really think engineers haven't thought of changing the gearbox? The actual issue is that moving something that large at those speeds through the air simply causes sound.
Contrary to popular believe uranium mining isn't nearly as polluting and dangerous as it is thought to be so that's not much of an issue. Now disposal is another funny problem. The thing is, the waste from one nuclear reactor can often be used as fuel for another. Sadly due to organisations like greenpeace pushing their program and people believing their sweet talk we're not able to build those reactors at commercial scale cause "oh no, it's nuclear!". The fun fact is that using a breeder reactor a lot of the radioactive danger can be eliminated in the long run. That's one thing you'll never find in the greenpeace brochure cause it doesn't really help their cause now does it?
Oh yes it does, most of the materials we use have no realistic alternative. Especially if you like clock cycles of 1 GHz and higher. Arsenides are also essential in the production of the LEDs that all these environmentally concious people like. And more than once we end up with a waste product that can't be processed in any realistic way. So there are two options at that point, dump it in the nearby river or store it (like is currently being done). I wouldn't call that a clean industry at all.
And you really didn't read my initial post did you? Photovoltaic is the only option in urbanised areas as you can't tear down people's houses for energy generation. Especially if it has such a bad turn over compared to the area being used. And the same counts for hydroelectric. And actually this is an argument about power generation, so yes it does matter. In an urbanised area there are two important factors when considering a power plant. Electric power generated by unit of area and chance of catastrophic failure. Nuclear scores the best on both of those. And to generate radioisotopes you don't strictly need a nuclear reactor but I'm not really sure why you included that argument. Could you please introduce a logical structure in your next response?
They are a good measure of safety. But the proponents of green energy do not wish to listen to them cause they don't realise how much damage their power sources actually cause. Sadly I must warn you about a few things. Wind mills often use rare earth metals in their construction. Leading to mining with a high degree of pollution. Now a hydroelectric dam requires disowning large pieces of land and destroys the nature in that area (doesn't sound green to me). And don't get me started on photovoltaic cells. Actually being involved in this industry to a certain degree as EE, and I could (and I will) start hanging out some of the dirty laundry. Semiconductor production is so toxic and destructive for the environment that it should be downright banned. It consumes large amounts of energy for starters. But this isn't the main problem actually. The materials used are, the least harmful material used is actually silicon. We clean our ovens with gasses that can set just about anything on fire and explodes on contact with water; We also use arsenic as if it's child's play. There is not a single industry (except for maybe gold mining) that causes so much damage to the environment as the semiconductor industry does. So yes, your environmentally friendly solar panels actually caused a wake of destruction in their manufacturing process.
Actually, yes I am. Look up the statistics.
Deaths caused by nuclear power vs. other means of power generation leads to funny results actually. Since you won't believe me if I try to mathematically explain it. Let me link to a reliable source: http://www.physics.isu.edu/radinf/np-risk.htm . Another fun set of statistics can be found here (though a less reliable source): http://nextbigfuture.com/2011/03/deaths-per-twh-by-energy-source.html .
And since the ^2 symbol is not allowed on slashdot, I meant km^2.
Also, typo: I forgot the after the 400km.
That's where you're wrong.
You wish to argue about solar plants. I am arguing about putting solar panels on houses. Area is a severe restriction in Western-Europe. Find an area in Western-Europe that doesn't have a city in the immediate neighbourhood. It's pretty much impossible at this point. As such putting solar panels on roofs is an easy solution indeed. Loads of space there and they're out of the way. But they're largely useless during the winter and at night. So energy storage is a must have with photovoltaic systems. Heating water or salt (direct or indirectly) is indeed another way that is used in solar plants. But downscaling makes it useless. Now you can't reserve a few square kilometre for these things without having to throw somebody out of their house. And the energy generated / area unit is still very low compared to nuclear power. Due to this the space required can't be justified morally at all.
And actually, many power plants are very close to cities, harbours, and large industrial areas. If you wish to argue that isn't the case with nuclear reactors. Then you're also wrong. You'll often find a nuclear reactor within 50km of a city centre. In fact in Belgium you'll find one at a bit less than 20km from a city centre if memory serves right. And if you wish to know something that's probably going to terrify the heck out of you. Many of the RBMKs are still in use today (the type of reactor in the Chernobyl incident). With modifications mind you. The simple reason is that these reactors have such a high output that it's near impossible to replace them with anything but hydroelectric at large scale. The largest windmill farm on land takes up 400km ( http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/article/2009/10/ec-r-completes-780-mw-roscoe-wind-farm ) and only delivers 780MW at most. On the other hand the RBMK will output well over 1000MW using only a fraction of that land. Try competing with that using your green power.
Due to outdated equipment that should have been replaced years ago. Newer reactors have less problems like that.
That is actually not true, there are many underground streams that are worth looking at. But tapping these resources is quite the engineering challenge. And the implications of stopping such a stream for construction work isn't well known either.
That has more to do with the structure of the power grid than the reliability of the power generation method at use.
If a 100m long piece of fibreglass makes it way through your bedroom in the middle of the night you'd laugh less.
I also forgot to mention the noise and the shadow from the rotating blades is pretty annoying to live with.
Those take up large spaces and due to that are not even a competition in highly urbanised areas with a lot of industrial activity (where the power is most needed). And stacking them on top of buildings -while theoretically feasible- brings up other issues; As the winds there are highly unpredictable combined with the building moving and oscillating due to the wind making aiming the mirrors troublesome. I wouldn't want to be charged with the task of designing a system like that at all.
Another issue with solar based systems in Europe is that it's pretty much impossible to reach maximum output except for maybe 2-3 months a year during summer. So in the summer you'd have a severe over capacity on the grid, while in the winter you'd be struggling to keep up with the demand (heating). And transporting electricity over large distances is hard considering the losses on the lines. And increasing the voltage even further isn't an option either.
As such I stand by my point that solar based systems are inefficient for use in most of Europe (with the exception of Portugal, Spain, Italy and Greece).
Rain does not agree with you sadly.