A flexible panel can be rolled up and stuffed in a backpack, and then unrolled to charge a phone or tablet.
And that would be another cool product that very few people would actually buy and use, just like the folding panels available now. Makes much more sense to buy a backup battery or charger pack unless you are on some kind of long outdoor stint.
Exactly. What was the result when they performed the same trial using a person wearing an emergency guide vest? Or did these wonderful researchers forget one of the basics of experimentation?
A university president may make $500K, but s/he oversees 5000+ employees, 30,000+ students, a campus of 250+ buildings and an endowment of a billion or more. I'm not sure they should be compared with the set of all folks calling themselves CEO.
On the other hand, CEO's are at much greater risk of being prosecuted for the actions of employees.
"There might be an application such as broadcasting video or information to, say, a stadium crowd or a convention center crowd."
Do you even know what a PROJECTOR is?
Yeah, its a thing that is not likely capable of putting a video on every individual's tablet or phone, nor letting them choose which info stream to intercept. Is that right, or did I get it wrong? Please tell me.
There might be an application such as broadcasting video or information to, say, a stadium crowd or a convention center crowd. Maybe signs that emit more data about their advertisers, etc. Any application where a one-way local data stream might be useful. There would need to be some standard protocols for interception.
I see you soften your stance every post.
Designing a nuclear plant to perform fast load follow is quite easy to do. Gas reactors are inherently very good at this, many of the small reactor designs will be pretty good at it as well. You can simply deny it, but that is your own problem.
90% nukes is entirely due to refueling and unexpected down time. It is very rare a nuke is not run full power. Many nukes have had 365 day 100% runs at one time or another.
Whoever modded this Troll is quite afraid of the facts.
If you understood my explanation, then you understand how ridiculous it is to make statements about wind "capacity" vs nuclear capacity in the terms they presented.
Or if not, then please explain why it does make sense to compare in that manner? Its a PR move, one that takes advantage of the fact that a lot of people don't understand what capacity means. It is a trick used over and over again with renewable PRs. If they clearly stated, up front, that it takes 3 or 4 MW of wind capacity to produce as much electrical power as 1 MW of nuclear, then you might have a point. But they didn't. They could have, they should have, but they didn't.
You simply have no clue as to what makes the grid in places like the US reliable, and how that reliability is necessary first in order to consider adding intermittent sources such as solar and wind. Its not an assumption, it is something that should be obvious even to you.
Germany and Denmark rely on a heavy underpinning of coal and nuclear to enable their renewable build up.
Please just stop and use common sense. Do you really believe we would be building windmills right now if we didn't have enough base-load generation to reliably operate the system? You are stuck with a tunnel-vision focus on only peak loading and filling the gaps, which is done presently best by gas and coal. But you are ignoring, intentionally or otherwise, the entirety of the system and what makes adding unreliable renewables even a consideration.
Capacity factor is total generation for the year over total generation if the plant operated at 100% 24/7 for the year. Downtime due to maintenance and refueling is included.
Please do a least a little checking before you post, you are just professing your ignorance.
The point is your oversimplified application that works, expensively, in your niche situation is lacking the consideration of the larger use case, so it is simply not thought through.
Nice if you live in a world where all the power you need is right at your house. All those things you buy, even those batteries, just magically materialize.
Yes, because of huge subsidies and incentives. Even Warren Buffet said he only invests in wind project because the goverment gifts, otherwise they would be losers. And before you go screaming 'nuclear gets bigger subsidies', check your numbers. On a per MWH generated or to be generated basis, solar and wind get many times more than any other power source ever devised.
With our current infrastructure, that's true. However, imagine a situation in which everyone has a battery bank at home, with a smart interface to the power grid. If the solar panel or wind turbines are not kicking out enough power, the home runs off the battery bank. When there is ample juice in the pipeline, the battery bank gets charged and the home runs on direct power from the grid. That would be doable. It would require a change in end-user mindset and more up-front costs to the end users, but it could be done.
Yes, imagine that infrastructure. Imagine what it would cost, for one. Imagine the ecological impact of mining for the rare earth elements for those batteries, the production of chemicals used for manufacture, and the waste of the batteries themselves as they need to be replaced every decade at least.
There is lots to imagine, but if we talk practicality and affordability those dreams take a 'reality break'.
But new plants aren't coming online that are safer because licenses aren't available. Those plants are incredibly dangerous leading to a logical fallacy resulting in not issuing new licenses to newer safer designs.
Image is everything.
Please cite your basis for this. Sounds like you are just spouting your biased assumptions.
90% nukes is entirely due to refueling and unexpected down time. It is very rare a nuke is not run full power. Many nukes have had 365 day 100% runs at one time or another.
You are confusing the ultimate need for steady , reliable power with the challenge of filling in the gaps for unreliable renewables. Without a solid base of reliable power, we couldn't even entertain adding the intermittent, unreliable sources. SInce reliable sources enable unreliable renewables, they can be added and we can deal with intermittance however we choose.
The inability for nukes to load follow is a myth perpetuated by anti-nukes. Many of the existing plants were not designed to load follow because they were filling a baseload need. But it is quite easy to design nuclear plants that load follow, and even some plants in France initially designed for baseload to have been modified to follow load.
Be rest assured, the anti-nukes will ignore the facts and keep saying what is not true.
Slashdot Mirror
A flexible panel can be rolled up and stuffed in a backpack, and then unrolled to charge a phone or tablet.
And that would be another cool product that very few people would actually buy and use, just like the folding panels available now. Makes much more sense to buy a backup battery or charger pack unless you are on some kind of long outdoor stint.
What if they were told the robot had been hacked?
Exactly. What was the result when they performed the same trial using a person wearing an emergency guide vest? Or did these wonderful researchers forget one of the basics of experimentation?
A university president may make $500K, but s/he oversees 5000+ employees, 30,000+ students, a campus of 250+ buildings and an endowment of a billion or more. I'm not sure they should be compared with the set of all folks calling themselves CEO.
On the other hand, CEO's are at much greater risk of being prosecuted for the actions of employees.
"should not exist" does not mean it "cannot exist". So the model could be correct.
"There might be an application such as broadcasting video or information to, say, a stadium crowd or a convention center crowd."
Do you even know what a PROJECTOR is?
Yeah, its a thing that is not likely capable of putting a video on every individual's tablet or phone, nor letting them choose which info stream to intercept. Is that right, or did I get it wrong? Please tell me.
There might be an application such as broadcasting video or information to, say, a stadium crowd or a convention center crowd. Maybe signs that emit more data about their advertisers, etc. Any application where a one-way local data stream might be useful. There would need to be some standard protocols for interception.
How would this compare to using discarded oranges.
I see you soften your stance every post. Designing a nuclear plant to perform fast load follow is quite easy to do. Gas reactors are inherently very good at this, many of the small reactor designs will be pretty good at it as well. You can simply deny it, but that is your own problem.
90% nukes is entirely due to refueling and unexpected down time. It is very rare a nuke is not run full power. Many nukes have had 365 day 100% runs at one time or another.
Whoever modded this Troll is quite afraid of the facts.
If you understood my explanation, then you understand how ridiculous it is to make statements about wind "capacity" vs nuclear capacity in the terms they presented.
Or if not, then please explain why it does make sense to compare in that manner? Its a PR move, one that takes advantage of the fact that a lot of people don't understand what capacity means. It is a trick used over and over again with renewable PRs. If they clearly stated, up front, that it takes 3 or 4 MW of wind capacity to produce as much electrical power as 1 MW of nuclear, then you might have a point. But they didn't. They could have, they should have, but they didn't.
You simply have no clue as to what makes the grid in places like the US reliable, and how that reliability is necessary first in order to consider adding intermittent sources such as solar and wind. Its not an assumption, it is something that should be obvious even to you.
Germany and Denmark rely on a heavy underpinning of coal and nuclear to enable their renewable build up.
"sigh"
Please just stop and use common sense. Do you really believe we would be building windmills right now if we didn't have enough base-load generation to reliably operate the system? You are stuck with a tunnel-vision focus on only peak loading and filling the gaps, which is done presently best by gas and coal. But you are ignoring, intentionally or otherwise, the entirety of the system and what makes adding unreliable renewables even a consideration.
Nuclear reactors don't have a "capacity factor" of 90%. >
Do you even stop to think a second before you say stuff?
http://www.nei.org/Knowledge-C...
Capacity factor is total generation for the year over total generation if the plant operated at 100% 24/7 for the year. Downtime due to maintenance and refueling is included.
Please do a least a little checking before you post, you are just professing your ignorance.
The point is your oversimplified application that works, expensively, in your niche situation is lacking the consideration of the larger use case, so it is simply not thought through.
Again, you are missing the big picture. Adding intermittent sources can only be done on top of a reliable base system.
Duh! If I'm going to contradict someone I make sure to double check my figures, which I did, using statistics from the EIA.
Just because you are used to making things up without sources doesn't mean everyone else does too.
So, link to your statistics. You evidently mis-used them. Was that intentional?
Nice if you live in a world where all the power you need is right at your house. All those things you buy, even those batteries, just magically materialize.
If that is your own personal rationalization for excusing intentionally misleading information, so be it.
Yes, because of huge subsidies and incentives. Even Warren Buffet said he only invests in wind project because the goverment gifts, otherwise they would be losers. And before you go screaming 'nuclear gets bigger subsidies', check your numbers. On a per MWH generated or to be generated basis, solar and wind get many times more than any other power source ever devised.
With our current infrastructure, that's true. However, imagine a situation in which everyone has a battery bank at home, with a smart interface to the power grid. If the solar panel or wind turbines are not kicking out enough power, the home runs off the battery bank. When there is ample juice in the pipeline, the battery bank gets charged and the home runs on direct power from the grid. That would be doable. It would require a change in end-user mindset and more up-front costs to the end users, but it could be done.
Yes, imagine that infrastructure. Imagine what it would cost, for one. Imagine the ecological impact of mining for the rare earth elements for those batteries, the production of chemicals used for manufacture, and the waste of the batteries themselves as they need to be replaced every decade at least.
There is lots to imagine, but if we talk practicality and affordability those dreams take a 'reality break'.
But new plants aren't coming online that are safer because licenses aren't available. Those plants are incredibly dangerous leading to a logical fallacy resulting in not issuing new licenses to newer safer designs.
Image is everything.
Please cite your basis for this. Sounds like you are just spouting your biased assumptions.
90% nukes is entirely due to refueling and unexpected down time. It is very rare a nuke is not run full power. Many nukes have had 365 day 100% runs at one time or another.
You are confusing the ultimate need for steady , reliable power with the challenge of filling in the gaps for unreliable renewables. Without a solid base of reliable power, we couldn't even entertain adding the intermittent, unreliable sources. SInce reliable sources enable unreliable renewables, they can be added and we can deal with intermittance however we choose.
The inability for nukes to load follow is a myth perpetuated by anti-nukes. Many of the existing plants were not designed to load follow because they were filling a baseload need. But it is quite easy to design nuclear plants that load follow, and even some plants in France initially designed for baseload to have been modified to follow load.
Be rest assured, the anti-nukes will ignore the facts and keep saying what is not true.