I've watched the Russian original, and it's very weird. Their claim is that pilot first strafed the cockpit with guns which resulted in cockpit detaching from the aircraft, which they claim Dutch investigators have confirmed. The goal was apparently to silence the crew and prevent calls for help. Then the aircraft fired a heat seeker into the engines causing aircraft to spin out of control and crash.
Their other point on the other hand sounded much more reasonable. They note that BUK missile makes a very brightly visible plume and persistent smoke trail as it goes through its trajectory, and there were apparently no confirmed instances of footage of this in relation to the plane. Considering just how obviously exceptional it would look in the sky and how many photos there are of pretty much anything weird happening in the warring region, it does sound odd that no one got any footage of the missile. It should be visible for tens of kilometers in all directions.
Overall, the case is getting stranger with every relevation.
Irrelevant. You clearly stated that "Your solution is to let ISIS continue it's ways with no interference." I'm still waiting for that quote where I suggested any kind of a solution at all.
I've had enough of your bullshit, lying and insanity. Quote me or admit you don't have a clue.
Except that Nvidia users are reporting all the same problems. Crashes, clipping issues, massive fps drops in certain buildings. All the nine miles.
I've even seen reports that even tri-SLI 980s cannot handle the game on 1080p ultra with no AA at stable 60 fps. This is pretty much as powerful of a machine as you can get today. And the game definitely doesn't look good enough to justify that kind of power not being enough.
This is Ubisoft's shitty optimization dropping the ball.
Quote me doing so. Please note that your hallucinations do not count. I understand that it may be hard to differentiate with you being insane, but try.
Again, that is a single study by a company that sells the wind power plants. And even then, it still had to note that it was an outlier with "astounding results", which is the marketing speak for "it looks stupidly out line in comparison to other studies in the field".
High strength magnets produce stronger field. It's not so much about "reducing amount of coils" as "there's a very limited amount of space and we need to have as efficient generator as possible in this limited space".
It's sitting on nominal 34MW battery capacity. They advertise a 85MW total capacity because they count their raw wind output in addition to battery capacity for best case scenario. As far as I know, they are not on the grid, merely a test case attached to an existing wind farm. It appears it has gone nowhere, most likely because technology was unfeasible.
This could be because they use sodium-sulfur batteries that are exceptionally dangerous and operate at high temperature (300-350C) and are simply unusable on small scale nor large scale. They only fit this kind of "medium scale" implementation where they can minimize the risk by making facility reasonable in size while large enough to be functional. And the cost of this operation is astronomical in comparison to normal spinning reserve, which is likely why project has gone straight up nowhere. Essentially all other battery based deployments are in sub-megawatt range:
It doesn't. It has to pay people to take the power. If you read what I typed out, you'd understand. That is why you get negative electricity costs on exchange that handles Denmark every once in a while.
P.S. For those wondering: angelosphere is the resident pro wind power shill who isn't even very good - take a look at this post of his if you are considering him to be a reliable source: http://slashdot.org/comments.p... He doesn't even know that overwhelming majority of modern windpower has gearboxes and will have them for a long time to come, nor does he have a clue how generators work.
Neodymium on the other hand is used in generators for magnets, which are needed to transform rotational motion into AC current. And the slower the rotation, the less current you generate per surface of magnets, which is why you need the gearbox - to accelerate the generator's rotor. If you go without the gear box, your rotor becomes very slow and you need more magnets - that is more neodymium to extract the same amount of electricity out of the rotational motion.
Yes, I know that you're a residential cluelss wind power troll. But someone might actually believe that you have a clue, so let's nip your trolling in the bud.
Earth is full or rare earths as well. And just like Lithium, places where you can extract it at reasonable costs are very limited. For example, sea water has hundreds of billions of tonnes of lithium, but it's impossible to extract in a meaningfully economic fashion. Same problem in the earth crust, it's abundant but in such low concentrations that extraction is exceedingly difficult and uneconomic.
That is why lithium deposits that actually have decent concentrations are extremely valuable, and why most of the current mining occurs in South America where world's best deposits are located according to current geological data.
Pumped hydro is useless for this kind of storage, which is why Germany is dismantling its pumped hydro. It's designed for predictable on/off cycle with good forewarning time.
Wind like renewables require quick on/off time with no forewarning. Pumped hydro is terrible for this. About the only hydro that does work is halting the passage of water through the turbines in the single flow direction hydro plants. Which is what Sweden does when Denmark is overproducing. Then you empty the water storage when they don't. This increases wear and tear, but in single direction flow system, it's not excessive.
The rest of your argument is completely irrelevant to the topic at hand. This isn't about consumption but base power and spinning reserve.
1. " They are no excessive". That would be because there is no solution other than non-renewable spinning reserve in existence right now. The entire problem is that this solution is now going bankrupt. That's the entire point - the "solution" that was meant for this problem is vanishing. Read the article and comprehend what it's actually talking about. 2. Danish wind power is overwhelmingly offshore or shoreline, which for purposes of my point are one and the same thing. Wind blows in similar fashion on shore and in nearby offshore parks, and as a result, they largely share the on/off cycle. 3. This is largely universal across Europe. If what you claim would be true, wind wouldn't sell anything because everything would be taken by both coal and nuclear in Denmark as well as imports from Sweden. 4. This is the "power comes out of the socket" argument. What you don't understand is that generators aren't being on "standby". They want to mothball plants and go bankrupt. Keeping a coal plant as spinning reserve is a huge money drain. With them not being able to sell power because of the priority rules, they effectively are forced to keep their plant running without being able to sell any power for large amounts of time.
Try to keep up. The entire premise of the article is that the model you're touting here as successful is failing horribly. The plants that were supposed to provide "non excessive cost spinning reserve and base power" are unprofitable because of punitive measures against them (or pro green as they are usually marketed to people). That means their entire house of cards collapses because if these plants are allowed to go bankrupt, their entire plan for the grid is suddenly a catastrophic failure.
Kindly point me to such technology. As far as I know, there are no such technologies currently in existence, and none of the promising potential technologies went beyond the lab.
Before you mention pumped hydro - it's incompatible with current unreliable renewables because of their unpredictability. This is why Germany is dismantling its pumped hydro even as this problem is on massive rise in there. Pumped hydro is designed to switch flow direction in a predictable fashion, and does not have response rate needed to replace spinning reserve.
The problem is that reality doesn't care about people and their well being either. But people in the government actually have to. At least here in the Nordics.
Which is why there are people who keep raising this question before the reality throws the system off the cliff.
Do you comprehend the sheer volume of space this will require in every single apartment building? Not to mention the obvious problems like fire risk that would require redesign of much of the building, threat of acid leak and potential lead poisoning.
Translation: you no longer have an argument, you got caught in your circular logic and you refuse to get your head out of the sand.
As noted before, when US and Russia armed Saddam, he was raping and murdering. When US armed Shias, they did the exact same thing - went to rape and murder Sunnis and Kurds. They do it to this day by the way, which is the main reason why Baghdad is barely holding and majority of Sunnis around Baghdad are welcoming IS and joining its ranks.
And now, you are suggesting we do it to Kurds.
Definition of insanity is to do the same thing while expecting different results. Clearly, you are insane.
Off the top of my head: Buddhists (Sri Lanka, India, smaller nations in East Asia), Hindus (mostly India), Christians (all across Africa like in CAR and Nigeria)
Direct drive turbines are notably less efficient, much heavier and their reliability is questionable at best. Not to mention the ridiculous costs, the generator requires about ten times the neodymium to function compared to generator on plant with a gearbox for example.
As a result, their installed base is tiny, while wind turbine gearbox market is projected to double over this decade at the very least.
It's not the blades. It's the transmission and generator. As in the plant itself. Forces they must withstand are tremendous, and they can't be overly big or heavy.
Blades, as far as I know, are usually either composite or aluminum alloy.
Because lithium is a limited resource and current prices are based off the fact that it isn't in overwhelmingly huge demand to be installed in every single apartment building in huge volumes.
This is a permanent problem, and one that they were warned about, repeatedly. Greens in the government just pretended it doesn't exist until it's now hitting them square in their faces. Germany is hitting the same problem with Energiewende right now.
The situation is this. Denmark produces mostly wind power nowadays. Wind power is installed mainly offshore. That means that they have huge peaks and huge offtime. Europe had wholesale electricity prices set on electricity exchanges for years now. What that means is that large producers and users buy and sell energy based either off current price, or long term contracts that usually take those peaks into account.
For actual producers, this means that free market sets the price. I.e. when wind blows and everyone is creating a huge peak, electricity price can actually dive into negative for reasons I'll outline in a moment. And when it's down due to too much or too little wind, you have a huge demand for electricity to replace the lost load driving the prices up.
Now for the reason for negative pricing on electricity. Normally renewables like wind functioning in fully free market would be massively unprofitable when installed in sufficient numbers because they would all produce at once > price collapses due to massive supply and lack of demand > they never get a good price on their electricity. And at the same time when they cannot produce any energy, only base power kinds of power plants produce energy and get to net a premium.
So how do you make renewables make money when they can only sell when price is cheap and not when it's more expensive? The answer in Denmark and Germany has been to legislate priority tiers depending on your "greenness". Essentially, not a single watt of non-renewable energy can be sold on exchange until all of renewable capacity has been sold. At the same time, same legislation prevents reliable non-renewables and renewables from spinning down their plants while they legally cannot sell anything they produce. The result is absurd. They end up paying just to get someone take the power they have to produce off their hands. Hence negative electricity prices during peak times for non-renewables who can sell their electricity on the exchange after renewables took all the offers with actual money on the table.
This obviously leads to the problem where it's unprofitable to keep the non-renewable plants operating, so operators just shut down the plant. Except that woops, if they do, you have grid blackouts as a regular occurrence because there's not enough base power when wind isn't blowing and you actually stand to lose the entire grid to a blackout. Something that is unheard of in modern Northern Europe.
TL;DR Essentially, the reality is that the market is functioning too well, and as a result to make renewables profitable legislators had to massively shaft everyone else with punitive measures. And now that everyone else has been penalized into unprofitability and want out of the business, the brutal reality of the fact that wind is dysfunctional as base power is starting to hit everyone in their faces.
Slashdot Mirror
I've watched the Russian original, and it's very weird. Their claim is that pilot first strafed the cockpit with guns which resulted in cockpit detaching from the aircraft, which they claim Dutch investigators have confirmed. The goal was apparently to silence the crew and prevent calls for help. Then the aircraft fired a heat seeker into the engines causing aircraft to spin out of control and crash.
Their other point on the other hand sounded much more reasonable. They note that BUK missile makes a very brightly visible plume and persistent smoke trail as it goes through its trajectory, and there were apparently no confirmed instances of footage of this in relation to the plane. Considering just how obviously exceptional it would look in the sky and how many photos there are of pretty much anything weird happening in the warring region, it does sound odd that no one got any footage of the missile. It should be visible for tens of kilometers in all directions.
Overall, the case is getting stranger with every relevation.
Irrelevant. You clearly stated that "Your solution is to let ISIS continue it's ways with no interference." I'm still waiting for that quote where I suggested any kind of a solution at all.
I've had enough of your bullshit, lying and insanity. Quote me or admit you don't have a clue.
Except that Nvidia users are reporting all the same problems. Crashes, clipping issues, massive fps drops in certain buildings. All the nine miles.
I've even seen reports that even tri-SLI 980s cannot handle the game on 1080p ultra with no AA at stable 60 fps. This is pretty much as powerful of a machine as you can get today. And the game definitely doesn't look good enough to justify that kind of power not being enough.
This is Ubisoft's shitty optimization dropping the ball.
I offered a solution?
Quote me doing so. Please note that your hallucinations do not count. I understand that it may be hard to differentiate with you being insane, but try.
Again, that is a single study by a company that sells the wind power plants. And even then, it still had to note that it was an outlier with "astounding results", which is the marketing speak for "it looks stupidly out line in comparison to other studies in the field".
High strength magnets produce stronger field. It's not so much about "reducing amount of coils" as "there's a very limited amount of space and we need to have as efficient generator as possible in this limited space".
I suspect you're talking about Rokkasho-Futamata wind farm battery power smoothing system:
http://www.cleanenergyactionpr...
http://www.hitachi.com/New/cne...
It's sitting on nominal 34MW battery capacity. They advertise a 85MW total capacity because they count their raw wind output in addition to battery capacity for best case scenario. As far as I know, they are not on the grid, merely a test case attached to an existing wind farm. It appears it has gone nowhere, most likely because technology was unfeasible.
This could be because they use sodium-sulfur batteries that are exceptionally dangerous and operate at high temperature (300-350C) and are simply unusable on small scale nor large scale. They only fit this kind of "medium scale" implementation where they can minimize the risk by making facility reasonable in size while large enough to be functional. And the cost of this operation is astronomical in comparison to normal spinning reserve, which is likely why project has gone straight up nowhere. Essentially all other battery based deployments are in sub-megawatt range:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Ah yes, this is about placing blame. Not about solutions or problems, but blame. Because blame matters, while problems and solutions don't.
You are getting more and more off your rockers with every post.
It doesn't. It has to pay people to take the power. If you read what I typed out, you'd understand. That is why you get negative electricity costs on exchange that handles Denmark every once in a while.
P.S. For those wondering: angelosphere is the resident pro wind power shill who isn't even very good - take a look at this post of his if you are considering him to be a reliable source: http://slashdot.org/comments.p...
He doesn't even know that overwhelming majority of modern windpower has gearboxes and will have them for a long time to come, nor does he have a clue how generators work.
Published by Orenda energy, that supplies wind power. Is forced to note that results are "astounding" and "conflict with previous studies".
Ah yes, the troll arrives to troll.
Here, take a look. This is your average wind turbine:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Neodymium on the other hand is used in generators for magnets, which are needed to transform rotational motion into AC current. And the slower the rotation, the less current you generate per surface of magnets, which is why you need the gearbox - to accelerate the generator's rotor. If you go without the gear box, your rotor becomes very slow and you need more magnets - that is more neodymium to extract the same amount of electricity out of the rotational motion.
Yes, I know that you're a residential cluelss wind power troll. But someone might actually believe that you have a clue, so let's nip your trolling in the bud.
Earth is full or rare earths as well. And just like Lithium, places where you can extract it at reasonable costs are very limited. For example, sea water has hundreds of billions of tonnes of lithium, but it's impossible to extract in a meaningfully economic fashion. Same problem in the earth crust, it's abundant but in such low concentrations that extraction is exceedingly difficult and uneconomic.
That is why lithium deposits that actually have decent concentrations are extremely valuable, and why most of the current mining occurs in South America where world's best deposits are located according to current geological data.
Pumped hydro is useless for this kind of storage, which is why Germany is dismantling its pumped hydro. It's designed for predictable on/off cycle with good forewarning time.
Wind like renewables require quick on/off time with no forewarning. Pumped hydro is terrible for this. About the only hydro that does work is halting the passage of water through the turbines in the single flow direction hydro plants. Which is what Sweden does when Denmark is overproducing. Then you empty the water storage when they don't. This increases wear and tear, but in single direction flow system, it's not excessive.
The rest of your argument is completely irrelevant to the topic at hand. This isn't about consumption but base power and spinning reserve.
1. " They are no excessive". That would be because there is no solution other than non-renewable spinning reserve in existence right now. The entire problem is that this solution is now going bankrupt. That's the entire point - the "solution" that was meant for this problem is vanishing. Read the article and comprehend what it's actually talking about.
2. Danish wind power is overwhelmingly offshore or shoreline, which for purposes of my point are one and the same thing. Wind blows in similar fashion on shore and in nearby offshore parks, and as a result, they largely share the on/off cycle.
3. This is largely universal across Europe. If what you claim would be true, wind wouldn't sell anything because everything would be taken by both coal and nuclear in Denmark as well as imports from Sweden.
4. This is the "power comes out of the socket" argument. What you don't understand is that generators aren't being on "standby". They want to mothball plants and go bankrupt. Keeping a coal plant as spinning reserve is a huge money drain. With them not being able to sell power because of the priority rules, they effectively are forced to keep their plant running without being able to sell any power for large amounts of time.
Try to keep up. The entire premise of the article is that the model you're touting here as successful is failing horribly. The plants that were supposed to provide "non excessive cost spinning reserve and base power" are unprofitable because of punitive measures against them (or pro green as they are usually marketed to people). That means their entire house of cards collapses because if these plants are allowed to go bankrupt, their entire plan for the grid is suddenly a catastrophic failure.
Which is the point of this article.
Kindly point me to such technology. As far as I know, there are no such technologies currently in existence, and none of the promising potential technologies went beyond the lab.
Before you mention pumped hydro - it's incompatible with current unreliable renewables because of their unpredictability. This is why Germany is dismantling its pumped hydro even as this problem is on massive rise in there. Pumped hydro is designed to switch flow direction in a predictable fashion, and does not have response rate needed to replace spinning reserve.
I love how by your suggesting we should arm more people for raping and murdering, I'm the one who supports rape and murder.
Truly, the initial diagnosis appears to be spot on. You are insane.
I'm interested in the solution you propose that would fit your average Danish apartment block.
Lithuim's advantage is not only light weight but its general efficiency per volume and lack of toxicity typically associated with lead-acid.
The problem is that reality doesn't care about people and their well being either. But people in the government actually have to. At least here in the Nordics.
Which is why there are people who keep raising this question before the reality throws the system off the cliff.
Do you comprehend the sheer volume of space this will require in every single apartment building? Not to mention the obvious problems like fire risk that would require redesign of much of the building, threat of acid leak and potential lead poisoning.
Translation: you no longer have an argument, you got caught in your circular logic and you refuse to get your head out of the sand.
As noted before, when US and Russia armed Saddam, he was raping and murdering. When US armed Shias, they did the exact same thing - went to rape and murder Sunnis and Kurds. They do it to this day by the way, which is the main reason why Baghdad is barely holding and majority of Sunnis around Baghdad are welcoming IS and joining its ranks.
And now, you are suggesting we do it to Kurds.
Definition of insanity is to do the same thing while expecting different results. Clearly, you are insane.
In reality?
Off the top of my head: Buddhists (Sri Lanka, India, smaller nations in East Asia), Hindus (mostly India), Christians (all across Africa like in CAR and Nigeria)
Direct drive turbines are notably less efficient, much heavier and their reliability is questionable at best. Not to mention the ridiculous costs, the generator requires about ten times the neodymium to function compared to generator on plant with a gearbox for example.
As a result, their installed base is tiny, while wind turbine gearbox market is projected to double over this decade at the very least.
It's not the blades. It's the transmission and generator. As in the plant itself. Forces they must withstand are tremendous, and they can't be overly big or heavy.
Blades, as far as I know, are usually either composite or aluminum alloy.
Because lithium is a limited resource and current prices are based off the fact that it isn't in overwhelmingly huge demand to be installed in every single apartment building in huge volumes.
This is a permanent problem, and one that they were warned about, repeatedly. Greens in the government just pretended it doesn't exist until it's now hitting them square in their faces. Germany is hitting the same problem with Energiewende right now.
The situation is this. Denmark produces mostly wind power nowadays. Wind power is installed mainly offshore. That means that they have huge peaks and huge offtime. Europe had wholesale electricity prices set on electricity exchanges for years now. What that means is that large producers and users buy and sell energy based either off current price, or long term contracts that usually take those peaks into account.
For actual producers, this means that free market sets the price. I.e. when wind blows and everyone is creating a huge peak, electricity price can actually dive into negative for reasons I'll outline in a moment. And when it's down due to too much or too little wind, you have a huge demand for electricity to replace the lost load driving the prices up.
Now for the reason for negative pricing on electricity. Normally renewables like wind functioning in fully free market would be massively unprofitable when installed in sufficient numbers because they would all produce at once > price collapses due to massive supply and lack of demand > they never get a good price on their electricity. And at the same time when they cannot produce any energy, only base power kinds of power plants produce energy and get to net a premium.
So how do you make renewables make money when they can only sell when price is cheap and not when it's more expensive? The answer in Denmark and Germany has been to legislate priority tiers depending on your "greenness". Essentially, not a single watt of non-renewable energy can be sold on exchange until all of renewable capacity has been sold. At the same time, same legislation prevents reliable non-renewables and renewables from spinning down their plants while they legally cannot sell anything they produce. The result is absurd. They end up paying just to get someone take the power they have to produce off their hands. Hence negative electricity prices during peak times for non-renewables who can sell their electricity on the exchange after renewables took all the offers with actual money on the table.
This obviously leads to the problem where it's unprofitable to keep the non-renewable plants operating, so operators just shut down the plant. Except that woops, if they do, you have grid blackouts as a regular occurrence because there's not enough base power when wind isn't blowing and you actually stand to lose the entire grid to a blackout. Something that is unheard of in modern Northern Europe.
TL;DR Essentially, the reality is that the market is functioning too well, and as a result to make renewables profitable legislators had to massively shaft everyone else with punitive measures. And now that everyone else has been penalized into unprofitability and want out of the business, the brutal reality of the fact that wind is dysfunctional as base power is starting to hit everyone in their faces.