So by your own admission, he has everything to do with actual sanctions. He just has nothing to with with events that started the chain which now resulted in sanctions.
Bending logic backwards like this just so that you can produce an expected outcome of "Trump is [negative descriptor]" is a good sign of Trump Derangement Syndrome.
I'm genuinely curious why it is that you think that "propaganda efforts" would be unsuccessful if this didn't happen in a country with central control over all media?
Remember the time when ACs on slashdot actually could comprehend written text and not just suddenly kneejerk bomb the long conversation with "I didn't read this discussion thread, TFA said this, you appear contradict it at a glance, therefore you're wrong!"
Concessions he gets in return. This seems to be something forgotten by generations raised post Cold War era. Power politics are not just about negotiating. They're about negotiating from the position of power.
CCP's primary reason for economic development is employment, as employment reduces social unrest. Social unrest is the primary boogie man of CCP, which is terrified of its own people. That is why they maintain the steel production in otherwise poor northern China in spite of massive oversupply it is causing on the world markets, and all the anti-China tensions that go with it. Can't afford mass unemployment and unrest it will cause.
Same applies here. Trump has shown once again that he understands power politics. He has CCP by the balls on this one, and now, he can actually negotiate.
Sure. Said battery will cost you more than your house. Likely your neighbourhood's houses too.
That is if you actually push all houses to have it. For purposes of reliability utterly irrelevant in residential use.
See, this is the part that I used to enjoy about slashdot of the old, that I really don't like about the current one. It's full of opinionated and ignorant people talking about things they have absolutely no understanding on outside popular culture references. As a result, they make claims that are beyond idiotic.
Your understanding is ignorant at best, and just plain idiotic at worst. The main reason why 3rd world grids have problems is because they're underdeveloped in terms of infrastructure, which is one of the definition for "developing" country status. It's the same problem why they have severe problems with other public services as well.
The fact that most of developed countries didn't have a major blackout for decades should be more than enough to tell you that you're categorically wrong in your understanding of how grids work.
The other folks already addressed your strange misconceptions about how modern electronics work. Hint: Stable grids have existed for close to a century now. That's before the digital computers, when load balancing was done literally by people, manually. You do not need the kind of fine control that this battery tech supposedly provides. It's like someone trying to sell you a residential tap that can manage temperature switching in millionth of degree increments. You do not need this kind of accuracy, and you do not want to be paying for it either. It's doable, but utterly useless.
Which gets us to the second point. It is hypothetically possible that battery installation is going to be cheaper in some limited conditions. Overall however, this is/has not:
1. Producer of energy. You still need to get that power somewhere. 2. Anything even close to 1:1 input to output ratio, which means it loses power. Likely in significant amounts. 3. Cheap to install, and not likely cheap to maintain either. This is where it might eventually become cheap enough for some edge case usage scenarios. Unlikely to become cheap enough to be efficient for any kind of a sizeable roll out. This one is actually quite simply about economies of scale. The sheer amount of lithum you'd need to balance grids world wide would require a complete rethink on how we extract lithium in the first place. The amounts we can get by basically spreading water over desert and letting the sun dry it out is nowhere near required. So if this ever goes beyond edge case usage, it will simply kill itself with increase of raw materials costs.
This is industrial deployment, not hipster tech. Every little bit of the tech you're overbuilding raises prices for everyone.
We could certainly put a power generation on every corner. It would cost you, just as the kind of deployment you're suggesting would. But it is possible, and it would certainly improve power factor of inductive load dominated sub-grids and transformers as you put it.
One thing that most people forget in industrial deployment, is that you need to get it just right. Not too much, and not too little. Too little, and you suffer blackouts and brownouts. Too much, and everyone is overpaying for infrastructure, and your region rapidly loses any heavy industry it ever had while everyone else looks at moving out to a region with lower living costs for basics.
South Australia appears to be one of those special places where power costs are nutty specifically because of power generation oligopolies. And even then, their other boast in addition to "lower costs" is "we overbuilt it and are providing quality that is better than needed and utterly irrelevant".
The obvious question is, why won't government step in and manage the distribution by capping profits to certain percentage of revenue? This is a fairly common action to take when privatizing large monopolistic actors such as power grid providers.
Heck, Australian investors actually own a sizable chunk of my nation's power grid. We had problems with them just raising prices to the maximum allowed on yearly basis. That's why you put such limits in place. To prevent monopolistic, anti-competitive actors from raising costs on the users.
I mean, you only have what, pretty much every river in deserts that is ever dammed. Such as, say, Nile?
Please don't talk about things you know nothing about beyond pop culture garbage. No, nuclear doesn't glow, and yes, many dams are built literally in the middle of the desert specifically to provide irrigation in addition to power to certain desertified areas.
They don't have to. Grids have existed for something around a hundred years now. Pretty much anything and everything hooked to the grid can handle short term frequency fluctuations. It's literally required to.
Producing "better than needed" is of negative value in industrial capacity, because it means you overbuilt it. The key aspect of engineering on industrial scale is getting the product into the sweet spot, where it's just good enough to meet the need. Which means that end client pays for his exact needs, and not extra needs he doesn't have.
And when you're talking industrial scale, you're talking costs vs benefits.
Gas turbine on the other hand can be installed pretty much anywhere. I'm speaking from personal experience, which is on pretty much the opposite side of the world, where there is some elevation and some flowing rivers.
But in most cases, gas turbine is probably the most reliable, quick and resilient after hydro when it comes to spinning reserve.
What is it that you think this thread is talking about? The paper specifically talks about battery usage in place of spinning reserve.
Source of steam is pretty irrelevant in the turbine for this purpose. What matters is that steam turbine takes a while to take load even when it's spun up. Gas turbine, not so much. Which is why you generally don't use steam turbine as low latency spinning reserve, and instead use a gas turbine or a hydro setup on a nearest river.
Not necessarily, because the "benchmark" used here was "conventional steam turbine". Steam turbines indeed do take quite a few (tens) of minutes while to take the load depending on their status.
Gas turbines on the other hand do not, and neither does hydro. Both are commonly used for load balancing specifically for this reason. The comparison is... odd. Having read the paper, I'm assuming that this is some kind of a unique market that didn't actually have access to any common spinning reserve sources. The size of the market, with 30MW being sufficient for all of its load balancing for the time tested appears to confirm it. This seems to be a very localized grid with minimal interconnections with outside world for load balancing purposes. Most of the lucrative markets in the world are large interconnected ones.
It's about the extra tools provided to relevant state enforcement bureaus. If you need an example of how this works, remind yourself what Al Capone was nailed for.
If you're willing to become a criminal, you're already out of the scope of this policy. Instead you're a client of the justice system and then penal one.
Slashdot Mirror
It's a literal translation of that Russian word.
The news paper by that name on the other hand was Orwellian, just like much of the society it existed in. "Truth is lie".
"Work done" can be confirmation from both client and driver that delivery was made rather than mining.
This is actually an interesting idea. Transparency within the system is one of the key weak points in logistical tracking today.
So by your own admission, he has everything to do with actual sanctions. He just has nothing to with with events that started the chain which now resulted in sanctions.
Bending logic backwards like this just so that you can produce an expected outcome of "Trump is [negative descriptor]" is a good sign of Trump Derangement Syndrome.
I'm genuinely curious why it is that you think that "propaganda efforts" would be unsuccessful if this didn't happen in a country with central control over all media?
I hear cows also fly.
(If you ship then in an airplane, but just like you just did, we'll ignore that caveat).
Remember the time when ACs on slashdot actually could comprehend written text and not just suddenly kneejerk bomb the long conversation with "I didn't read this discussion thread, TFA said this, you appear contradict it at a glance, therefore you're wrong!"
Read onward in this thread. There are several people that explain in significant detail why it's utterly irrelevant in real life applications.
Concessions he gets in return. This seems to be something forgotten by generations raised post Cold War era. Power politics are not just about negotiating. They're about negotiating from the position of power.
CCP's primary reason for economic development is employment, as employment reduces social unrest. Social unrest is the primary boogie man of CCP, which is terrified of its own people. That is why they maintain the steel production in otherwise poor northern China in spite of massive oversupply it is causing on the world markets, and all the anti-China tensions that go with it. Can't afford mass unemployment and unrest it will cause.
Same applies here. Trump has shown once again that he understands power politics. He has CCP by the balls on this one, and now, he can actually negotiate.
Sure. Said battery will cost you more than your house. Likely your neighbourhood's houses too.
That is if you actually push all houses to have it. For purposes of reliability utterly irrelevant in residential use.
See, this is the part that I used to enjoy about slashdot of the old, that I really don't like about the current one. It's full of opinionated and ignorant people talking about things they have absolutely no understanding on outside popular culture references. As a result, they make claims that are beyond idiotic.
So, is this kind of radiation present in nuclear plants?
The trolls are getting really awful lately.
Your understanding is ignorant at best, and just plain idiotic at worst. The main reason why 3rd world grids have problems is because they're underdeveloped in terms of infrastructure, which is one of the definition for "developing" country status. It's the same problem why they have severe problems with other public services as well.
The fact that most of developed countries didn't have a major blackout for decades should be more than enough to tell you that you're categorically wrong in your understanding of how grids work.
The other folks already addressed your strange misconceptions about how modern electronics work. Hint: Stable grids have existed for close to a century now. That's before the digital computers, when load balancing was done literally by people, manually. You do not need the kind of fine control that this battery tech supposedly provides. It's like someone trying to sell you a residential tap that can manage temperature switching in millionth of degree increments. You do not need this kind of accuracy, and you do not want to be paying for it either. It's doable, but utterly useless.
Which gets us to the second point. It is hypothetically possible that battery installation is going to be cheaper in some limited conditions. Overall however, this is/has not:
1. Producer of energy. You still need to get that power somewhere.
2. Anything even close to 1:1 input to output ratio, which means it loses power. Likely in significant amounts.
3. Cheap to install, and not likely cheap to maintain either. This is where it might eventually become cheap enough for some edge case usage scenarios. Unlikely to become cheap enough to be efficient for any kind of a sizeable roll out. This one is actually quite simply about economies of scale. The sheer amount of lithum you'd need to balance grids world wide would require a complete rethink on how we extract lithium in the first place. The amounts we can get by basically spreading water over desert and letting the sun dry it out is nowhere near required. So if this ever goes beyond edge case usage, it will simply kill itself with increase of raw materials costs.
Right, the world's electricity doesn't work. We don't have stable grids. They're all crashing all the time because of lack of batteries.
In the real world on the other hand, this technology has been working for what, a hundred years at this point?
This is industrial deployment, not hipster tech. Every little bit of the tech you're overbuilding raises prices for everyone.
We could certainly put a power generation on every corner. It would cost you, just as the kind of deployment you're suggesting would. But it is possible, and it would certainly improve power factor of inductive load dominated sub-grids and transformers as you put it.
One thing that most people forget in industrial deployment, is that you need to get it just right. Not too much, and not too little. Too little, and you suffer blackouts and brownouts. Too much, and everyone is overpaying for infrastructure, and your region rapidly loses any heavy industry it ever had while everyone else looks at moving out to a region with lower living costs for basics.
South Australia appears to be one of those special places where power costs are nutty specifically because of power generation oligopolies. And even then, their other boast in addition to "lower costs" is "we overbuilt it and are providing quality that is better than needed and utterly irrelevant".
The obvious question is, why won't government step in and manage the distribution by capping profits to certain percentage of revenue? This is a fairly common action to take when privatizing large monopolistic actors such as power grid providers.
Heck, Australian investors actually own a sizable chunk of my nation's power grid. We had problems with them just raising prices to the maximum allowed on yearly basis. That's why you put such limits in place. To prevent monopolistic, anti-competitive actors from raising costs on the users.
I mean, you only have what, pretty much every river in deserts that is ever dammed. Such as, say, Nile?
Please don't talk about things you know nothing about beyond pop culture garbage. No, nuclear doesn't glow, and yes, many dams are built literally in the middle of the desert specifically to provide irrigation in addition to power to certain desertified areas.
They don't have to. Grids have existed for something around a hundred years now. Pretty much anything and everything hooked to the grid can handle short term frequency fluctuations. It's literally required to.
Producing "better than needed" is of negative value in industrial capacity, because it means you overbuilt it. The key aspect of engineering on industrial scale is getting the product into the sweet spot, where it's just good enough to meet the need. Which means that end client pays for his exact needs, and not extra needs he doesn't have.
And when you're talking industrial scale, you're talking costs vs benefits.
Gas turbine on the other hand can be installed pretty much anywhere. I'm speaking from personal experience, which is on pretty much the opposite side of the world, where there is some elevation and some flowing rivers.
But in most cases, gas turbine is probably the most reliable, quick and resilient after hydro when it comes to spinning reserve.
What is it that you think this thread is talking about? The paper specifically talks about battery usage in place of spinning reserve.
Source of steam is pretty irrelevant in the turbine for this purpose. What matters is that steam turbine takes a while to take load even when it's spun up. Gas turbine, not so much. Which is why you generally don't use steam turbine as low latency spinning reserve, and instead use a gas turbine or a hydro setup on a nearest river.
Not necessarily, because the "benchmark" used here was "conventional steam turbine". Steam turbines indeed do take quite a few (tens) of minutes while to take the load depending on their status.
Gas turbines on the other hand do not, and neither does hydro. Both are commonly used for load balancing specifically for this reason. The comparison is... odd. Having read the paper, I'm assuming that this is some kind of a unique market that didn't actually have access to any common spinning reserve sources. The size of the market, with 30MW being sufficient for all of its load balancing for the time tested appears to confirm it. This seems to be a very localized grid with minimal interconnections with outside world for load balancing purposes. Most of the lucrative markets in the world are large interconnected ones.
It's about the extra tools provided to relevant state enforcement bureaus. If you need an example of how this works, remind yourself what Al Capone was nailed for.
If you're willing to become a criminal, you're already out of the scope of this policy. Instead you're a client of the justice system and then penal one.
When homeopathy et al troll intentionally confuses "actually works" with "just works".
The difference between medicine and alternative medicine, is that medicine actually works.
Just sayin'
If you use the service to stress test your site against DDoS attacks, how is this in any way criminal?
Any sane court would laugh your arguments of guilt by association out. As they should.