The question I would ask in response is why is nuclear so expensive?
It costs a lot to build, but proved cost effective over time. Existing plants are very economical, we need to keep them going and not let market shifting policies force them out.
All power sources have gotten subsidies over the years, mainly because abundant low cost energy is seen a central to a thriving economy. Nuclear has received a lot of subsidies, but has also produce huge amounts of clean air power in return. If you calculated in on a per MWH basis, no energy source has ever been subsidized nearly as heavily as solar and wind are. Its not even close. And that includes estimating future generation from installed sources. If you would give nuclear 1/3 of what solar and wind are getting on a per MWH basis, there would be a rush to get going.
Of course, there is value in being consistent and dispatchable rather than variable and non-dispatchable that is not reflected in these numbers, nor are the cost of overcapacity required if were were to be fully wind and solar based. What is included in the levelized cost for nuclear is waste disposal and decommissioning, just in case you were wondering.
How the hell can Fukishima increase nuclear related deaths when nobody died from it???
And if we're counting radiation induced cancer and subsequent deaths (which, from fukishima is basically non-existent) then why do we give coal/oil/etc. a pass on pollution induced deaths?
A good a place as any to throw in this link to a well written piece regarding undue radiation fears. Some people are wising up, but many still just can't accept that radiation risk isn't what its been made out to be all these years.
Cars in both places are very safe in general. There is always room for improvement, but if you meet the requirements, and don't make inaccurate claims, then what is the problem? This just looks like an attempt to capitalize on the current VW drama.
There are a shitload of technologies out there and nobody is an expert in all of them. Sure, there needs to be tech-saavy people in leadership, but having a tech "expert" on the board is not always required. The board is not an island, they use input from experts outside the board all the time.
His chance of making bad decision are very high if he doesn't understand the business, market, production process, competition, other cost elements, etc. Understanding those makes the technology choice straightforward, a CNC expert was not required.
Flow batteries aren't news, yet the words "flow battery" appear nowhere in the summary. This is an article about a flow battery. If you were expecting something new, this article isn't about that.
And the article babbles incoherently about 'connecting electrical lines', while saying nothing about what makes this flow battery actually practical. The 'noxious chemicals' in the existing flow batteries were actually not a problem to contain.
Not sure if you paid attention to both companies over the last 5 years, but acquisitions were a big part of their plan. It had as much to do with printing services as it did products.
The point is, those acquisitions drain capital and now are not returning asset value.
Given the hype around 3D printing, you'd never guess that established leaders like 3D Systems and Stratasys have seen their stock fall by 75 percent in the last year
Hype is the reason the stocks were overinflated to begin with. It was easy to predict. These companies business model was rapid expansion via buyouts, but the problem is that the technology is evolving and improving, which de-values the technology they acquired.
There is some speculation to be done on how this cheat actually came about. These things sometimes evolve out of something more benign rather than a dictum from above that the car cheat on tests. It could have started as a feature that does some internal checks and performance verifications before a test, then someone added a function that actually ensured certain parameters were in place, and so on. Incremental changes that on their own 'didn't seem so bad'.
No excuses for what was done. Just speculation on how VW got to this point.
They should have asked the engineers to come up with a solution that they could not be held accountable for. Such as open sourcing the system and leaking a performance upgrade.
The ultimate proof is on the bill. If power is selling for less now than it did in the past, it succeeded. End of story.
It depends on your definition of success. Mine is making significant progress against CO2 emissions globally, in a sustainable manner. It is not having a low price on my power bill. I care about societal and systemic costs, not prices. So, if a power bill is artificially low due to heavy taxpayer assistance, then it might not be considered success by everyone.
If you did the calculation based on $ per MWH generated, you'd see that solar and wind get help many times what any other source has ever seen. Its not even close.
Its not anywhere close to 30 percent supply though, just meeting 30 percent capacity for a short peroid while demand was minimal. Not really impressive if you consider what it cost to accomplish.
Slashdot Mirror
The question I would ask in response is why is nuclear so expensive?
It costs a lot to build, but proved cost effective over time. Existing plants are very economical, we need to keep them going and not let market shifting policies force them out.
Cost of Exiting Generation - IEA REPORT – 2015
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t...
EXISTING NUCLEAR: $50/MWH
EXISTING WIND : VARIES BETWEEN 45 and 140 $/MWH
EXISTING SOLAR: VARIES BETWEEN 150 and 300 $MWH
All power sources have gotten subsidies over the years, mainly because abundant low cost energy is seen a central to a thriving economy. Nuclear has received a lot of subsidies, but has also produce huge amounts of clean air power in return. If you calculated in on a per MWH basis, no energy source has ever been subsidized nearly as heavily as solar and wind are. Its not even close. And that includes estimating future generation from installed sources. If you would give nuclear 1/3 of what solar and wind are getting on a per MWH basis, there would be a rush to get going.
Levelized cost projections from a credible, objective source can be found here: http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/a...
Of course, there is value in being consistent and dispatchable rather than variable and non-dispatchable that is not reflected in these numbers, nor are the cost of overcapacity required if were were to be fully wind and solar based. What is included in the levelized cost for nuclear is waste disposal and decommissioning, just in case you were wondering.
How the hell can Fukishima increase nuclear related deaths when nobody died from it???
And if we're counting radiation induced cancer and subsequent deaths (which, from fukishima is basically non-existent) then why do we give coal/oil/etc. a pass on pollution induced deaths?
A good a place as any to throw in this link to a well written piece regarding undue radiation fears. Some people are wising up, but many still just can't accept that radiation risk isn't what its been made out to be all these years.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09...
Cars in both places are very safe in general. There is always room for improvement, but if you meet the requirements, and don't make inaccurate claims, then what is the problem? This just looks like an attempt to capitalize on the current VW drama.
Do they have to make it look like a cockroach? If I'm trapped under debri, seeing cockroaches crawling toward me is not exactly what I'd want.
Great suggestion. Also, how about using it to find white collar criminal wannabees? Or better yet, predict which politicians will break the law.
So I expected the banal comments, but how can this be used positively?
My Devils' Advocate attempt: If you can ID a person who is likely on the path to crime, would it not be good to help them change their path?
There are a shitload of technologies out there and nobody is an expert in all of them. Sure, there needs to be tech-saavy people in leadership, but having a tech "expert" on the board is not always required. The board is not an island, they use input from experts outside the board all the time.
His chance of making bad decision are very high if he doesn't understand the business, market, production process, competition, other cost elements, etc. Understanding those makes the technology choice straightforward, a CNC expert was not required.
Flow batteries aren't news, yet the words "flow battery" appear nowhere in the summary. This is an article about a flow battery. If you were expecting something new, this article isn't about that.
And the article babbles incoherently about 'connecting electrical lines', while saying nothing about what makes this flow battery actually practical. The 'noxious chemicals' in the existing flow batteries were actually not a problem to contain.
...of common sense no doubt! I love hearing stories of correct implementations.
Its just sad there was ever even a question to start with.
Ah, I wasn't aware of that. You probably are right.
I should have included this link as one reference point;
http://www.valuewalk.com/2014/...
Not sure if you paid attention to both companies over the last 5 years, but acquisitions were a big part of their plan. It had as much to do with printing services as it did products.
The point is, those acquisitions drain capital and now are not returning asset value.
Given the hype around 3D printing, you'd never guess that established leaders like 3D Systems and Stratasys have seen their stock fall by 75 percent in the last year
Hype is the reason the stocks were overinflated to begin with. It was easy to predict. These companies business model was rapid expansion via buyouts, but the problem is that the technology is evolving and improving, which de-values the technology they acquired.
There is some speculation to be done on how this cheat actually came about. These things sometimes evolve out of something more benign rather than a dictum from above that the car cheat on tests. It could have started as a feature that does some internal checks and performance verifications before a test, then someone added a function that actually ensured certain parameters were in place, and so on. Incremental changes that on their own 'didn't seem so bad'.
No excuses for what was done. Just speculation on how VW got to this point.
They should have asked the engineers to come up with a solution that they could not be held accountable for. Such as open sourcing the system and leaking a performance upgrade.
Does this "fingerprint" bacterial cloud change with time?
This method of identification can be defeated by eating a taco.
At a significant expense, Tesla innovated many processes and designs for their electric cars.
Just remember Tesla uses many innovations and processes developed by traditional car manufacturers.
^All that and learning to mine asteroids seems more productive than a Mars mission.
The ultimate proof is on the bill. If power is selling for less now than it did in the past, it succeeded. End of story.
It depends on your definition of success. Mine is making significant progress against CO2 emissions globally, in a sustainable manner. It is not having a low price on my power bill. I care about societal and systemic costs, not prices. So, if a power bill is artificially low due to heavy taxpayer assistance, then it might not be considered success by everyone.
Actually, you might just be surprised on that as well.
Tray calculating on a per MWH generation basis. Its not even close, solar and wind by far get more $$.
If you did the calculation based on $ per MWH generated, you'd see that solar and wind get help many times what any other source has ever seen. Its not even close.
Its not anywhere close to 30 percent supply though, just meeting 30 percent capacity for a short peroid while demand was minimal. Not really impressive if you consider what it cost to accomplish.