I strongly suspect it kills quite a bit more than that mainly because of mercury bio-accumulation in sea life and prevalence of basic coal power plants in developing countries.
But these problems are avoidable through high tech coal plants like the newer ones that manage burning process carefully and filter exhaust extensively. CO2 emissions on the other hand are an unavoidable part of coal burning, and in the long run, they will be a major problem.
But it's highly unlikely we're going to have wars over coal any time soon. Last I read, Europe alone has enough coal to last it at least two to three hundred years. And Europe has been aggressively mining coal and survived two world wars where coal was of paramount importance as fuel for power plants and heating needed for metal refining. And one has to remember that "real cost" of almost anything is usually more than financial cost, and typically very difficult to accurately measure.
You once again completely fail to account for a fact that conditioner on-off cycle is temperature based. People running the grids have their own thermostats in the area and supply more power to the grid which is determined to be in the area automatically when most people have theirs turn on.
You also completely fail to account for the fact that it's much easier to compensate for one way flow than two way flow.
Who is telling you that's it's miracle it's working? Whoever he is, he's lying.
It has nothing to do with miracles. It has everything to do with skilled engineers managing the grid to the best of their ability. And they are the ones telling you that we have a problem, it's just not big enough yet to completely exhaust their means of managing it.
But day by day, the margin is getting smaller, and you really don't want small margins on something that needs near-100% uptime like electric grid.
You really don't understand the difference, do you?
Spinning reserve, that important and expensive part of generation is part of grid management. Attempting to separate it from grid management is like attempting to claim that your car is fine, it's just that the oil isn't there.
I don't think you understand the issue judging from your last post. You seem assume that as long as "monthly average" isn't spikey, all is fine.
Grids need to adjust to momentary spikes. Early grid management involved lot of analysts predicting things like consumption spikes after football games.
This is essentially bigger spikes than that occurring several times a day in each segment of the grid where there's a significant portion of solar installation, in an unpredictable fashion. Even modern automation has severe problems keeping up with this, which brings cost of grid maintenance up significantly.
If this was correct, you wouldn't be typing this on a computer tied to a functional grid, but tied to a diesel generator on a separate circuit.
See, the capability of grid to deliver electricity successfully and reliably is the measure used to measure grid's capability to function at any current time frame. Not capability to support new and completely unreliable and not yet ready power generation methods.
Now that I caught you in your bullshit, you'll pretend that you actually agreed, rather than disagreed with my original statement and use completely irrelevant factoids about... nuclear waste disposal as additional argument?
Are you perhaps drunk? You seem to be jumping between topics that are completely unconnected to one another, and you seem to assume that no one can look at your post just two tiers up.
No, I merely point out that you don't have a faintest clue of modus operandi of a grid operator, and the factors involved, as you guessed them completely incorrectly.
Which is something that any electric engineer that has ever worked on power supply systems would know, because they have to work with automation systems that have processes to counteract those factors.
Right. Dumb it down. You didn't even know anything beyond the very basic, did not understand the slightly more advanced concept at all, do not even know that rolling blackouts are a common thing to manage grid supply failures in Western countries, like Canada in 2014 and 2012 and so on.
Yes, because A/C system is a drain on the total resources, which can be easily compensated by draining more from the transmission line which has reliable power sources with reliable automation to compensate for the drain.
2KW from solar is much harder to compensate for because it does the exact opposite, dump extra power to the grid in an unpredictable fashion. And 2KW is not a problem - your particular residential circuit of the grid will readily eat that up in most cases. The problem begins when a lot of households in the same area put up panels. As they are in the same area, they will all be in near perfect sync for production/cessation of production cycles, and will all flare up and cut off at the same time. This will create huge (for a residential circuit) nearly perfectly timed spikes in the residential grid which in some cases may case the power flow to even reverse. This requires extremely complex additional automation systems and in some cases even bigger transmission lines to handle.
Our energy generation system is from current century, as is our infrastructure. Both are century-level projects that are updated as we go along. Energy infrastructure from 19th century was a work by extremely specialized people who were always working to try to predict power peaks and fall-off from things like scheduled power plant repairs, ends of workday, ends of large public gatherings like sport matches, and so on.
Nowadays it's a complex modern automation directly hooked into the power plants and grid substations with notable predictive and learning algorithms.
The problem is that even that is simply insufficient to carry completely unreliable power sources. Because these power sources are not ready yet to move into mass production.
Have you tried deeper parts of oceans yet? Antarctica under the ice?
Both are essentially a mystery today. We know almost nothing about deep ocean life, nor life under the ice in Antarctica. Recent operation when Russians finally managed to drill through kilmeters of ice to try to get a sample of what it is down there was the first success we had on that front.
If you follow up this thread (and several others on this topic), you'll notice that dblll is a known troll with an agenda. He talks about generalist stuff that sounds like it would make sense to a person who doesn't understand the details of power generation to promote wind and solar. When he's called out on his incorrect claims, he uses various forms of obfuscation, like claiming "these numbers are okay, but they signify something different", as he does below with "wind filling up the peaks" argument, when it's extremely obvious to anyone in who ever researched the topic that wind is always on full power and it's the coal and natural gas that are usually filling up the peaks of wind when it falls off the grid.
Longer answer: instability of wind and solar means you either have grid that has rolling blackouts several times a day, or you have 100% spinning reserve. Spinning reserve is mostly coal and natural gas.
As a result, whenever you add wind or solar to the network, you have to have a reliable burner based power plant with turbine running at operational speed and in phase with network ready to pick up the slack the moment wind blows too hard and it gets hit with more load from the network.
Since when is complex automation system, notable increase in complexity of gearbox mechanism and general strengthening of the pumps and turbines to handle acceleration cycles to operational speed better "magic"?
Though it is indeed said that to an ignorant, engineering feats appear to be magical.
Doomsday scenario? Rolling blackouts forced by overload on portion of grid is a norm even in some Western countries. Complete blackouts are far from unheard of. If you were ever an engineer working with electric grids, you'd be well aware of this fact.
Not going to even bother with the rest. You didn't even understand what I referred to when talking about what happens when you lose a power source and how that pushes your transit network out of phase with the rest of power generators. You just spouted general knowledge on how things work normally.
The only way it could possibly "help latency", other than placebo effect, is helping latency vs system with vsync enabled.
It cannot do anything to the system with vsync disabled, and having to match frame timing on display likely increases latency overhead. Monitor overhead already occupies a large chunk of the latency, and increasing it would likely increase, rather than decrease input latency.
If you were conscious of input latency, you were already playing with vsync off. That means gsync will in fact increase your input latency if enabled by increasing latency overhead on the monitor, just to a lesser degree than vsync.
The article in the link you provide as evidence agrees.
About the only reason I can see not to is putting ideology ahead of pragmatic solution in a problem where being pragmatic will have little to no impact on ideological struggle for open source. Nvidia won't care either way and won't open source its drivers even if every single linux user were to ask for it. Too small of an audience.
Slashdot Mirror
They are not "your elected representatives". They are "representatives of the elite pre-selected for you to choose from".
There is a huge difference.
I strongly suspect it kills quite a bit more than that mainly because of mercury bio-accumulation in sea life and prevalence of basic coal power plants in developing countries.
But these problems are avoidable through high tech coal plants like the newer ones that manage burning process carefully and filter exhaust extensively. CO2 emissions on the other hand are an unavoidable part of coal burning, and in the long run, they will be a major problem.
But it's highly unlikely we're going to have wars over coal any time soon. Last I read, Europe alone has enough coal to last it at least two to three hundred years. And Europe has been aggressively mining coal and survived two world wars where coal was of paramount importance as fuel for power plants and heating needed for metal refining. And one has to remember that "real cost" of almost anything is usually more than financial cost, and typically very difficult to accurately measure.
You once again completely fail to account for a fact that conditioner on-off cycle is temperature based. People running the grids have their own thermostats in the area and supply more power to the grid which is determined to be in the area automatically when most people have theirs turn on.
You also completely fail to account for the fact that it's much easier to compensate for one way flow than two way flow.
Who is telling you that's it's miracle it's working? Whoever he is, he's lying.
It has nothing to do with miracles. It has everything to do with skilled engineers managing the grid to the best of their ability. And they are the ones telling you that we have a problem, it's just not big enough yet to completely exhaust their means of managing it.
But day by day, the margin is getting smaller, and you really don't want small margins on something that needs near-100% uptime like electric grid.
You really don't understand the difference, do you?
Spinning reserve, that important and expensive part of generation is part of grid management. Attempting to separate it from grid management is like attempting to claim that your car is fine, it's just that the oil isn't there.
I don't think you understand the issue judging from your last post. You seem assume that as long as "monthly average" isn't spikey, all is fine.
Grids need to adjust to momentary spikes. Early grid management involved lot of analysts predicting things like consumption spikes after football games.
This is essentially bigger spikes than that occurring several times a day in each segment of the grid where there's a significant portion of solar installation, in an unpredictable fashion. Even modern automation has severe problems keeping up with this, which brings cost of grid maintenance up significantly.
This is literally what you call "having it so good, you don't know what having it bad means", aka "first world problems".
If you want to understand what "grid twenty years behind the need" means, I recommend taking a look at a country like India.
If this was correct, you wouldn't be typing this on a computer tied to a functional grid, but tied to a diesel generator on a separate circuit.
See, the capability of grid to deliver electricity successfully and reliably is the measure used to measure grid's capability to function at any current time frame. Not capability to support new and completely unreliable and not yet ready power generation methods.
So let me see.
Now that I caught you in your bullshit, you'll pretend that you actually agreed, rather than disagreed with my original statement and use completely irrelevant factoids about... nuclear waste disposal as additional argument?
Are you perhaps drunk? You seem to be jumping between topics that are completely unconnected to one another, and you seem to assume that no one can look at your post just two tiers up.
No, I merely point out that you don't have a faintest clue of modus operandi of a grid operator, and the factors involved, as you guessed them completely incorrectly.
Which is something that any electric engineer that has ever worked on power supply systems would know, because they have to work with automation systems that have processes to counteract those factors.
Right. Dumb it down. You didn't even know anything beyond the very basic, did not understand the slightly more advanced concept at all, do not even know that rolling blackouts are a common thing to manage grid supply failures in Western countries, like Canada in 2014 and 2012 and so on.
And then you "call my bullshit". Right.
Yes, because A/C system is a drain on the total resources, which can be easily compensated by draining more from the transmission line which has reliable power sources with reliable automation to compensate for the drain.
2KW from solar is much harder to compensate for because it does the exact opposite, dump extra power to the grid in an unpredictable fashion. And 2KW is not a problem - your particular residential circuit of the grid will readily eat that up in most cases. The problem begins when a lot of households in the same area put up panels. As they are in the same area, they will all be in near perfect sync for production/cessation of production cycles, and will all flare up and cut off at the same time. This will create huge (for a residential circuit) nearly perfectly timed spikes in the residential grid which in some cases may case the power flow to even reverse. This requires extremely complex additional automation systems and in some cases even bigger transmission lines to handle.
Our energy generation system is from current century, as is our infrastructure. Both are century-level projects that are updated as we go along. Energy infrastructure from 19th century was a work by extremely specialized people who were always working to try to predict power peaks and fall-off from things like scheduled power plant repairs, ends of workday, ends of large public gatherings like sport matches, and so on.
Nowadays it's a complex modern automation directly hooked into the power plants and grid substations with notable predictive and learning algorithms.
The problem is that even that is simply insufficient to carry completely unreliable power sources. Because these power sources are not ready yet to move into mass production.
But if they are in space, how can anyone hear them scream?
Have you tried deeper parts of oceans yet? Antarctica under the ice?
Both are essentially a mystery today. We know almost nothing about deep ocean life, nor life under the ice in Antarctica. Recent operation when Russians finally managed to drill through kilmeters of ice to try to get a sample of what it is down there was the first success we had on that front.
Ocean surface outside known shipping and cable lanes is largely unmapped.
Antarctica is largely unknown as it sits under kilometers of ice.
All of these surfaces are much easier to tap than surface of Mars. They are also being explored, slowly, as MH370 recovery operation showed.
If you follow up this thread (and several others on this topic), you'll notice that dblll is a known troll with an agenda. He talks about generalist stuff that sounds like it would make sense to a person who doesn't understand the details of power generation to promote wind and solar. When he's called out on his incorrect claims, he uses various forms of obfuscation, like claiming "these numbers are okay, but they signify something different", as he does below with "wind filling up the peaks" argument, when it's extremely obvious to anyone in who ever researched the topic that wind is always on full power and it's the coal and natural gas that are usually filling up the peaks of wind when it falls off the grid.
Oil =! coal.
Coal is available in great abundance in Europe and North America.
Short answer: Yes.
Longer answer: instability of wind and solar means you either have grid that has rolling blackouts several times a day, or you have 100% spinning reserve. Spinning reserve is mostly coal and natural gas.
As a result, whenever you add wind or solar to the network, you have to have a reliable burner based power plant with turbine running at operational speed and in phase with network ready to pick up the slack the moment wind blows too hard and it gets hit with more load from the network.
Since when is complex automation system, notable increase in complexity of gearbox mechanism and general strengthening of the pumps and turbines to handle acceleration cycles to operational speed better "magic"?
Though it is indeed said that to an ignorant, engineering feats appear to be magical.
Audience appears to disagree, judging by the moderation. You appear very much alone in your rather absurd assumption.
Doomsday scenario? Rolling blackouts forced by overload on portion of grid is a norm even in some Western countries. Complete blackouts are far from unheard of. If you were ever an engineer working with electric grids, you'd be well aware of this fact.
Not going to even bother with the rest. You didn't even understand what I referred to when talking about what happens when you lose a power source and how that pushes your transit network out of phase with the rest of power generators. You just spouted general knowledge on how things work normally.
The only way it could possibly "help latency", other than placebo effect, is helping latency vs system with vsync enabled.
It cannot do anything to the system with vsync disabled, and having to match frame timing on display likely increases latency overhead. Monitor overhead already occupies a large chunk of the latency, and increasing it would likely increase, rather than decrease input latency.
If you were conscious of input latency, you were already playing with vsync off. That means gsync will in fact increase your input latency if enabled by increasing latency overhead on the monitor, just to a lesser degree than vsync.
The article in the link you provide as evidence agrees.
G-sync is about syncing output of the buffer to frame rate to avoid tearing. It does nothing to latency.
JIT rendering also made it to maxwell btw, but that's a whole different story.
http://www.geforce.com/whats-n...
Why not just use closed source drivers?
About the only reason I can see not to is putting ideology ahead of pragmatic solution in a problem where being pragmatic will have little to no impact on ideological struggle for open source. Nvidia won't care either way and won't open source its drivers even if every single linux user were to ask for it. Too small of an audience.