Whelp, it's clear you're not interested in anything I have to say, and likewise I have concluded that you're not actually interested in discussing grid storage. Maligning it, yes. But not discussing it.
First the definition of feasible is possible to do easily or conveniently which I do not think you understand.
Another straw-man argument. Feasible was your word, not mine.
You're just multiplying current numbers by essentially arbitrary factors
We have ~23 minutes of storage. In order to increase that to 12 hours we need to increase by 12*60/23 = 31.304 times which I rounded down to 30. In order to build storage for 100% renewable we would need to build weeks of storage because analysis of weather patterns demonstrated gaps in wind and solar generation on a continental scale (from the paper). Which would be at least 14*31 = 434 times. Increase our current storage by 31 times is going to be really hard (ie not feasible). If increasing our current storage by 31 times is really hard (ie not feasible), increasing it by 400+ times will be impossible to do in the time scale we have.
And there you go again, just relying on multiplication instead of new approaches. Honestly, it's like shooting fish in a barrel. You just can't help yourself, I guess.
96% of all current storage is pumped hydro making it important to any discussion of storage.
If a breakthrough in technology occurs, my calculus will change. In fact I would suggest research in superconducting, anodized, and self-similar batteries. We shouldn't bet the farm on a magic breakthrough occurring though.
At some point in the past, if you wanted to travel over long distances, your primary option was probably to take a train. And then air travel became a thing. Get my drift? What we use now is irrelevant if it doesn't scale or meet future needs. Think out of the box, maybe?
Not true. Scaling 4th generation nuclear is not an insurmountable obstacle. Factory built reactors can solve climate change. I prefer an all of the above approach meaning I support wind, water, sunshine, geo, and nuclear.
Straw man argument. But for the record, I'm not against 4th gen nuclear. But this was a discussion on grid storage
Why is there always an assumption batteries will have exponential improvements like the microprocessor has? We have been investing in batteries since the 19th century. Flow batteries were invented in the 1880's. Lithium ion batteries were invented in the 1970's. If you are so creative why don't you build a super battery.
Who says it has to be batteries? Or, more precisely, who says it has to be electrical storage batteries? The point is not to bet on one technology and try to scale it, but to explore other possible solutions. If we just tried to scale up train travel to meet all long distance travel needs, we'd quickly find the inherent limitations in that technology. The point is to be open to new ideas, instead of just scaling up current solutions on paper and concluding they won't work.
And if everyone had an attitude like yours, nothing would ever be invented again.
Damn you are an arrogant fuck. You are making unfounded assumption based on your inflated ego and myopic perspective. I actually have a viable solution for climate change(4th generation nuclear). How does wanting to build 4th generation reactors result in nothing ever being invented again? Talk about a strawman argument.
No. This is not an unfounded assumption. You're dismissing the possibility of grid storage based on a defeatist approach -- this is not how innovation happens. Ask anyone in the innovation business.
You seemed to want a 100% renewable grid which would mean you opposed nuclear energy.
Please point me to where I said that. I think you will find that in fact I did not. I was talking about grid storage -- nothing more, nothing less.
A five minute conversation with me would reveal how creative I actually am.
At this point, I've spent more than 5 minutes conversing with you. I'm still not convinced.
96% of current storage is pumped hydro and in many parts of the country(California) it is illegal to add more hydro. Pumped hydro is cheaper then batteries or other electrical storage solutions(thermal, flywheel, etc). How do you plan to expand that 30x in time to reduce greenhouse gas emissions? 30x is just for 12 hours of storage which is 80% renewable. In order to get to 100% renewable we would need to increase it at least 300x times.
As I've already explained, scaling current solutions up (the so-called "math and physics") will almost always yield a seemingly insurmountable obstacle. Just as with electric cars, people took the cost (and the energy density, at the time) of lithium and scaled up the current costs, and concluded that electric cars would never succeed. What those supposedly reasonable "math and physics" types missed was that scaling battery production would lower costs, and improving energy density would move things along even further. They also failed to anticipate the effect that California's mandate on automakers had on the technology development.
And that's why I reject your argument as unimaginative. You're just multiplying current numbers by essentially arbitrary factors and concluding that it can't be done. You've failed to account for the fact that many of those technologies can be improved further, or approached from a different angle. For instance, an entirely different version of pumped hydro is to run a giant locomotive laden with huge weights up a grade, and then let it roll back down to recapture most of the energy. These have already been built, in fact. There are doubtless other gravity-based solutions.
Even if that is possible it would still take a century to construct
You pulled that number out of the rectal database. And it stinks, too. The panama canal was built in 11 years. The hoover dam was built in 5. both of those were built with very primitive tools, by today's standards. I think your estimate of "a century" lacks more than just imagination.
You also seem fixated on pumped hydro. There are plenty of other alternatives. Some doubtless haven't even been thought of yet. And if everyone had an attitude like yours, nothing would ever be invented again.
I have a better solution to climate change and clean energy, and it is 4th generation nuclear. I do not know why that is hard for you to understand.
What makes you say I don't understand it? Please point me to the spot where I ever discussed 4th generation nuclear?
Why do you oppose better options for solving climate change?
Why are you resorting to blatant straw-man arguments? Where did I say I was opposed to other options? In fact, I've said quite the opposite. Seems like you're grasping here.
There is nothing redeeming about coal, and I never mentioned coal as a good source of energy.
You mentioned aesthetics. I was comparing the aesthetics of renewable energy sources to those of traditional energy sources, and finding your reasoning less than acceptable.
The limit to pumped hydro is geology: you need two lakes near each other with the biggest elevation difference you can find (ideally, a hundred meters or more). There's a limited number of those, and a limited tolerance for creating new lakes by wiping out existing land.
That's certainly one way to do it. Can you really imagine no other versions of that?
And why does it have to be *only* pumped hydro? Why not other forms of energy storage? It seems obvious that multiple solutions can be harnessed depending on location and geography.
I work in tech. I can tell you with certainty that nothing is accomplished by saying "it won't work". Breakthroughs are made when people say "this is really hard, but what would it take to overcome this obstacle?"
That's the imagination part. Compare and contrast to your response.
You are a douche.
That's hardly the point.
I am arguing math and physics and your response is calling me a dolt.
You're not arguing math and physics. You're arguing that it's too hard. The two are definitely not the same.
You inflate electric cars (which I was always in favor of with) with grid level storage even though they are 2 separate things.
I used electric cars as an example -- it matters not whether you were in favor of them. Electric cars are a good proxy for the kind of subject where slashdotters are notoriously wrong simply because they lack imagination. You've just fallen into the same trap -- scaling current technology with "math and physics" (cough*bullshit*cough) and concluding that it couldn't possibly work.
They were wrong. And so are you. Grid storage will happen.
Grow up.
So that I can be as unimaginative as you? No thanks.
More unsightly than a coal plant? More unsightly than a mountain in Kentucky that's been leveled, ground up, and re-deposited on the same spot as a giant pile of gravel? More unsightly than a nuclear plant on a river? (there are lots of them)
I call BS. If "unsightly" is really the objection to renewable energy, I think I would like to kindly invite you to go fuck yourself.
It is unlikely will be able to double our pumped hydro storage let alone increase it ~30 times for 12 hours of storage.
Why? And if not pumped hydro, why not increases in any (or all) of the other alternatives? What's the actual limiting factor?
I'll tell you what the limiting factor is: it's your imagination.
People right here on Slashdot have been saying for years that electric cars would never achieve enough range to be marketable, and yet here we are in 2018 with people driving around in them all over the world, and almost every manufacturer planning new electric models. The slashdot pessimists were just flat-out wrong. Shocking.
If you've learned nothing else from slashdot, it's that the naysayers here are largely unimaginative dolts.
On the other hand, if you're talking about concentrating solar thermal plants (like the ones described in this story) there are no hazardous materials involved in their manufacture, which is definitely environmentally friendly.
And you didn't actually refute PopeRatzo's statement. Let me repeat it, since you seem to have misread it the first time:
On the other hand, if you're talking about concentrating solar thermal plants (like the ones described in this story) there are no hazardous materials involved in their manufacture
Can you tell us, SuperKendall, exactly what the hazardous materials involved are?
Crazy and offensive? I think that holds true for those on both sides of the aisle. ANTIFA, anyone? How offensive is that?...wearing masks and attacking people because they can't stand to hear what they don't like. That my friend is fringe.
It's true that there are fringe elements on both sides. It's just a matter of degree. From where I'm standing, the right has undertaken a radical shift of late. Antifa is nothing compared to the tea party, or the recent normalization of racism among the right, or the call for violence at any given Trump rally. There are countless examples of completely batshit-crazy behavior among the denizens of the right, compared to a very small number of examples on the left.
Nice try. But no. That's not how it works. They own their platform. They get to control it. You don't own their platform, nor do I. Your free speech rights don't extend to forcing someone else to say something they don't want to say. Period. On the flip side, they can't force you to say something that you don't want to say, either.
In your version of "free speech", you get to force other parties to deliver a message against their will. What happens when someone gets to force YOU to say something YOU don't want to say?
"Reddit has been something of a Wild West for users building communities by curating and commenting on content in subreddits,"
FALSE. They censor those who have right-wing viewpoints.
Maybe if the right-wing viewpoints were expressed with less frothing-at-the-mouth fervor, the rest of us would take the viewpoints more seriously. As it is, most of the right-wing stuff has become so radical and offensive over the last few years that it shouldn't be surprising to anyone that those viewpoints are getting pushed out as fringe.
In other words, if you want to have a meaningful conversation about any given topic, regardless of what side of the issue you're on, it would help if you didn't start with an obviously crazy and offensive standpoint (e.g. "lock her up" and other similar bullshit).
But it's happening again. The Wild West internet is gradually coming under the thumb of the Pompous Puritans. Facebook, Twitter and even Reddit are shutting down free speech bit by bit.
What about the free speech rights of Facebook or Twitter or Reddit? As much as I despise at least one of those corporations, I have to concede that those corporations also have the right to free speech, namely the right to control what appears on their platform. It's their platform -- we're all just guests there. To put the free speech rights of the guests above the owners of those platforms is to rob them of their rights.
I appreciate the argument, and the desire to have free speech. But one person's free speech cannot infringe on someone else's.
Better to let that one be and find another alternative instead.
The problem with any given alternative is that the people who get pushed out of established communities tend to be the ones that were already on the fringe. Thus, any alternative community has a very high fringe-nutjob-to-levelheaded ratio by simple virtue of how said alternative community came into being.
Anyone that lives in the Bay Area and owns a car deserves to have it broken into or stolen. Why the fuck would you even?
Sounds like you don't know the Bay Area very well. Or at least not very much of it. There are large swaths of the Bay Area -- especially Silicon Valley -- where mass transit isn't useful and cars are the main mode of transit.
Slashdot Mirror
Agreed that Amazon is becoming a monopoly, and it may need oversight from the FTC. But using outright lies about the company is not the way to do it.
There are many negative (and truthful) things he could say about Amazon. It is a mark of his incompetence that he is unable to do so.
You can't sue POTUS, dumb shit.
Besides, Trump is 100% right.
That's just plain false.
False. They don't have a special rate. They get a discount, but that same discount is available to all bulk shippers.
Whelp, it's clear you're not interested in anything I have to say, and likewise I have concluded that you're not actually interested in discussing grid storage. Maligning it, yes. But not discussing it.
So I'll here bid you adieu.
If this isn't man-made climate change, I don't know what is.
First the definition of feasible is possible to do easily or conveniently which I do not think you understand.
Another straw-man argument. Feasible was your word, not mine.
You're just multiplying current numbers by essentially arbitrary factors
We have ~23 minutes of storage. In order to increase that to 12 hours we need to increase by 12*60/23 = 31.304 times which I rounded down to 30. In order to build storage for 100% renewable we would need to build weeks of storage because analysis of weather patterns demonstrated gaps in wind and solar generation on a continental scale (from the paper). Which would be at least 14*31 = 434 times. Increase our current storage by 31 times is going to be really hard (ie not feasible). If increasing our current storage by 31 times is really hard (ie not feasible), increasing it by 400+ times will be impossible to do in the time scale we have.
And there you go again, just relying on multiplication instead of new approaches. Honestly, it's like shooting fish in a barrel. You just can't help yourself, I guess.
96% of all current storage is pumped hydro making it important to any discussion of storage.
If a breakthrough in technology occurs, my calculus will change. In fact I would suggest research in superconducting, anodized, and self-similar batteries. We shouldn't bet the farm on a magic breakthrough occurring though.
At some point in the past, if you wanted to travel over long distances, your primary option was probably to take a train. And then air travel became a thing. Get my drift? What we use now is irrelevant if it doesn't scale or meet future needs. Think out of the box, maybe?
Not true. Scaling 4th generation nuclear is not an insurmountable obstacle. Factory built reactors can solve climate change. I prefer an all of the above approach meaning I support wind, water, sunshine, geo, and nuclear.
Straw man argument. But for the record, I'm not against 4th gen nuclear. But this was a discussion on grid storage
Why is there always an assumption batteries will have exponential improvements like the microprocessor has? We have been investing in batteries since the 19th century. Flow batteries were invented in the 1880's. Lithium ion batteries were invented in the 1970's. If you are so creative why don't you build a super battery.
Who says it has to be batteries? Or, more precisely, who says it has to be electrical storage batteries? The point is not to bet on one technology and try to scale it, but to explore other possible solutions. If we just tried to scale up train travel to meet all long distance travel needs, we'd quickly find the inherent limitations in that technology. The point is to be open to new ideas, instead of just scaling up current solutions on paper and concluding they won't work.
And if everyone had an attitude like yours, nothing would ever be invented again.
Damn you are an arrogant fuck. You are making unfounded assumption based on your inflated ego and myopic perspective. I actually have a viable solution for climate change(4th generation nuclear). How does wanting to build 4th generation reactors result in nothing ever being invented again? Talk about a strawman argument.
No. This is not an unfounded assumption. You're dismissing the possibility of grid storage based on a defeatist approach -- this is not how innovation happens. Ask anyone in the innovation business.
You seemed to want a 100% renewable grid which would mean you opposed nuclear energy.
Please point me to where I said that. I think you will find that in fact I did not. I was talking about grid storage -- nothing more, nothing less.
Why else would you be mad when I said 80%
A five minute conversation with me would reveal how creative I actually am.
At this point, I've spent more than 5 minutes conversing with you. I'm still not convinced.
96% of current storage is pumped hydro and in many parts of the country(California) it is illegal to add more hydro. Pumped hydro is cheaper then batteries or other electrical storage solutions(thermal, flywheel, etc). How do you plan to expand that 30x in time to reduce greenhouse gas emissions? 30x is just for 12 hours of storage which is 80% renewable. In order to get to 100% renewable we would need to increase it at least 300x times.
As I've already explained, scaling current solutions up (the so-called "math and physics") will almost always yield a seemingly insurmountable obstacle. Just as with electric cars, people took the cost (and the energy density, at the time) of lithium and scaled up the current costs, and concluded that electric cars would never succeed. What those supposedly reasonable "math and physics" types missed was that scaling battery production would lower costs, and improving energy density would move things along even further. They also failed to anticipate the effect that California's mandate on automakers had on the technology development.
And that's why I reject your argument as unimaginative. You're just multiplying current numbers by essentially arbitrary factors and concluding that it can't be done. You've failed to account for the fact that many of those technologies can be improved further, or approached from a different angle. For instance, an entirely different version of pumped hydro is to run a giant locomotive laden with huge weights up a grade, and then let it roll back down to recapture most of the energy. These have already been built, in fact. There are doubtless other gravity-based solutions.
Even if that is possible it would still take a century to construct
You pulled that number out of the rectal database. And it stinks, too. The panama canal was built in 11 years. The hoover dam was built in 5. both of those were built with very primitive tools, by today's standards. I think your estimate of "a century" lacks more than just imagination.
You also seem fixated on pumped hydro. There are plenty of other alternatives. Some doubtless haven't even been thought of yet. And if everyone had an attitude like yours, nothing would ever be invented again.
I have a better solution to climate change and clean energy, and it is 4th generation nuclear. I do not know why that is hard for you to understand.
What makes you say I don't understand it? Please point me to the spot where I ever discussed 4th generation nuclear?
Why do you oppose better options for solving climate change?
Why are you resorting to blatant straw-man arguments? Where did I say I was opposed to other options? In fact, I've said quite the opposite. Seems like you're grasping here.
There is nothing redeeming about coal, and I never mentioned coal as a good source of energy.
You mentioned aesthetics. I was comparing the aesthetics of renewable energy sources to those of traditional energy sources, and finding your reasoning less than acceptable.
The limit to pumped hydro is geology: you need two lakes near each other with the biggest elevation difference you can find (ideally, a hundred meters or more). There's a limited number of those, and a limited tolerance for creating new lakes by wiping out existing land.
That's certainly one way to do it. Can you really imagine no other versions of that?
And why does it have to be *only* pumped hydro? Why not other forms of energy storage? It seems obvious that multiple solutions can be harnessed depending on location and geography.
The limiting factor is my hardly my imagination.
I work in tech. I can tell you with certainty that nothing is accomplished by saying "it won't work". Breakthroughs are made when people say "this is really hard, but what would it take to overcome this obstacle?"
That's the imagination part. Compare and contrast to your response.
You are a douche.
That's hardly the point.
I am arguing math and physics and your response is calling me a dolt.
You're not arguing math and physics. You're arguing that it's too hard. The two are definitely not the same.
You inflate electric cars (which I was always in favor of with) with grid level storage even though they are 2 separate things.
I used electric cars as an example -- it matters not whether you were in favor of them. Electric cars are a good proxy for the kind of subject where slashdotters are notoriously wrong simply because they lack imagination. You've just fallen into the same trap -- scaling current technology with "math and physics" (cough*bullshit*cough) and concluding that it couldn't possibly work.
They were wrong. And so are you. Grid storage will happen.
Grow up.
So that I can be as unimaginative as you? No thanks.
and some consider both to be unsightly.
More unsightly than a coal plant? More unsightly than a mountain in Kentucky that's been leveled, ground up, and re-deposited on the same spot as a giant pile of gravel? More unsightly than a nuclear plant on a river? (there are lots of them)
I call BS. If "unsightly" is really the objection to renewable energy, I think I would like to kindly invite you to go fuck yourself.
It is unlikely will be able to double our pumped hydro storage let alone increase it ~30 times for 12 hours of storage.
Why? And if not pumped hydro, why not increases in any (or all) of the other alternatives? What's the actual limiting factor?
I'll tell you what the limiting factor is: it's your imagination.
People right here on Slashdot have been saying for years that electric cars would never achieve enough range to be marketable, and yet here we are in 2018 with people driving around in them all over the world, and almost every manufacturer planning new electric models. The slashdot pessimists were just flat-out wrong. Shocking.
If you've learned nothing else from slashdot, it's that the naysayers here are largely unimaginative dolts.
On the other hand, if you're talking about concentrating solar thermal plants (like the ones described in this story) there are no hazardous materials involved in their manufacture, which is definitely environmentally friendly.
You are a fucking monster.
And you didn't actually refute PopeRatzo's statement. Let me repeat it, since you seem to have misread it the first time:
On the other hand, if you're talking about concentrating solar thermal plants (like the ones described in this story) there are no hazardous materials involved in their manufacture
Can you tell us, SuperKendall, exactly what the hazardous materials involved are?
Crazy and offensive? I think that holds true for those on both sides of the aisle. ANTIFA, anyone? How offensive is that? ...wearing masks and attacking people because they can't stand to hear what they don't like. That my friend is fringe.
It's true that there are fringe elements on both sides. It's just a matter of degree. From where I'm standing, the right has undertaken a radical shift of late. Antifa is nothing compared to the tea party, or the recent normalization of racism among the right, or the call for violence at any given Trump rally. There are countless examples of completely batshit-crazy behavior among the denizens of the right, compared to a very small number of examples on the left.
They have the right to censor (on their own platform), and we have the right to say it's a bad idea and we oppose it.
Yes. We do. And I support that. And I'll be there to tell you why, legally speaking, you're wrong.
Which is exactly what these platforms are doing.
Nice try. But no. That's not how it works. They own their platform. They get to control it. You don't own their platform, nor do I. Your free speech rights don't extend to forcing someone else to say something they don't want to say. Period. On the flip side, they can't force you to say something that you don't want to say, either.
In your version of "free speech", you get to force other parties to deliver a message against their will. What happens when someone gets to force YOU to say something YOU don't want to say?
Yeah. You might want to reconsider your position.
Corporations have no free speech "rights", check your constitution.
I wish that were true. But it's not. See: Corporate personhood.
The Citizens United decision hinges on the first amendment rights of corporate entities.
"Reddit has been something of a Wild West for users building communities by curating and commenting on content in subreddits,"
FALSE. They censor those who have right-wing viewpoints.
Maybe if the right-wing viewpoints were expressed with less frothing-at-the-mouth fervor, the rest of us would take the viewpoints more seriously. As it is, most of the right-wing stuff has become so radical and offensive over the last few years that it shouldn't be surprising to anyone that those viewpoints are getting pushed out as fringe.
In other words, if you want to have a meaningful conversation about any given topic, regardless of what side of the issue you're on, it would help if you didn't start with an obviously crazy and offensive standpoint (e.g. "lock her up" and other similar bullshit).
But it's happening again. The Wild West internet is gradually coming under the thumb of the Pompous Puritans. Facebook, Twitter and even Reddit are shutting down free speech bit by bit.
What about the free speech rights of Facebook or Twitter or Reddit? As much as I despise at least one of those corporations, I have to concede that those corporations also have the right to free speech, namely the right to control what appears on their platform. It's their platform -- we're all just guests there. To put the free speech rights of the guests above the owners of those platforms is to rob them of their rights.
I appreciate the argument, and the desire to have free speech. But one person's free speech cannot infringe on someone else's.
How does it feel to be an asshole?
You first.
The parent was talking about the top-level moderators catering to the snowflakes, not irrelevant sub-level moderators
Those aren't moderators. Those are Reddit executives.
Better to let that one be and find another alternative instead.
The problem with any given alternative is that the people who get pushed out of established communities tend to be the ones that were already on the fringe. Thus, any alternative community has a very high fringe-nutjob-to-levelheaded ratio by simple virtue of how said alternative community came into being.
Isn't this essentially what reddit already has? Community moderators on a per-subreddit basis?
Gives whiny people something more to whine about: TRUE
Honestly, I find the whining about Daylight Savings Time much worse than Daylight Savings Time itself.
Anyone that lives in the Bay Area and owns a car deserves to have it broken into or stolen. Why the fuck would you even?
Sounds like you don't know the Bay Area very well. Or at least not very much of it. There are large swaths of the Bay Area -- especially Silicon Valley -- where mass transit isn't useful and cars are the main mode of transit.