Unlike you. Mr change the laws of physics just like code in software, I do.
you'd have know that even nuclear is used for load follow in France
It's starting to look as if you need to look up the definition of load following. Clue #1 it is not about running units at full capacity. It's about running a unit at less than full capacity and it dramatically reduces life of anything where you have to frequently vary temperature to do it. Bringing full units on or off line is not load following.
Of course, you will find some reason to dismiss this real world information because it does not fit your imagined world scenarios. You will find your personal excuse to deny it, as you have in the past when I have presented sources, and you will in turn present no sources that back up your contentions. Why you will do this I don't know.
It is done a lot more than rarely. It is common practice in Germany. And, if you knew what you were talking about, you'd have know that even nuclear is used for load follow in France, and has been for quite some time. Again, real world and your world are two different things.
My statements stand up quite well to reality, where coal plants are often used for load follow. You can't deny that fact and so resort to your utter bullshit.
Do you deny that many coal plants are used for load follow?
Your self proclImed experience doesn't align with the real world where coal plants have been used as load follow in many places. Rant on,....everyone has begun ignoring you anyhow.
Actually, nuclear can load follow just fine. Its only that the existing fleet was not designed to do so. There is zero reason it cannot be variable, and the re are plenty of designs that allow it, either inherenlt or as an option.
Analogue baby monitors transmit and receives on CB frequencies or nearby. So everyone with a short wave radio or a CB rig could listen, an if the propagation is strong, signals from hundreds of kilometers away could be received by the baby monitor, and every trucker nearby could eavesdrop in your home.
Nobody cares less about this problems and buys these, because are cheap, ruggend and consumes low power.
Exactly. I did a motorcycle road trip with a friend years ago, with some cheap helmet to helmet communicator radios. We heard a lot of babies on that trip, and an occasional mom talking to here baby. It did not deter me from using them later when I had my own.
"I hate tailgaters. The only worse drivers on the road are the ones who drive so slow, you have to ride their rear bumper to get them to speed up."
George Carlin
True, your job may be to be a perfect asshole and impede others. But legally, and common sense-wise, and just as common courtesy, get over and drive properly.
Entitled assholes like you are actually the cause of most problems.
Sounds like you are one of those idiots that does not understand why passing left and keeping right helps everyone. And feels 'self entitled' to slow down others and impede traffic by lagging in the left.
But typically a lot of speeders are really, really low IQ types. you see them park on someone's rear bumper for miles flashing headlights, as if simply sliding to the right to pass the slowpoke is way too difficult for them..
No, they are trying to reinforce proper driving behavior. The person who is slowing down traffic in the wrong lane needs to pull over, and deserves some negative feedback from other drivers if he/she doesn't. Passing on the right is actually illegal in many places, and is generally less safe.
We just passed a law basically saying "keep right, except to pass". Judging by comments on news articles about the law, this concept is utterly incomprehensible for a large number of drivers. Any number of folks seemed to think that as long as they were doing the speed limit, this rule didn't apply to them, and that it was ok to stay in the left lane all day.
Glad you did. I think I heard New Jersey was working on a similar law that required you to move out of the way of other cars even if you were doing over the speed limit. So many idiots don't realize how much the screw up traffic and cause clustering of traffic because they just simply don't understand common sense.
It would be good to see what progress is being made, but it will be always be a challenge to have these control systems anticipate what human drivers intend to do.
Yeah, at this rate all of the nuclear accident deaths (~40k up to ~300k depending on who you trust).
Are you kidding me. What tabloid propoganda scare-group has been serving you the anti-nuke coolaid? You need to try diversifying your sources. As of now, deaths from Chernobyl are in the hundreds, and from any other nuclear power plant accident there are essentially zero deaths from radioactive exposure. The report on Fukushima just came out and they determined there will be no deaths or even illnesses attributable to the Fukushima event, that includes subsequent generations. I know it is hard to believe when you've lived hearing all the FUD. Try to be a little skeptical.
The areas you are talking about are very small patches, and there is no where that has zero microbial life. True, there are places that are impacted very close to the plant, but far from the 'thousands of acres'.
You can consider human life as an element, or you can ignore that element if you want. There are many factors, cost, practicality, certainty, reliability, etc. If you consider human health overall, nuclear power has been one of the most advantageous sources of energy ever devices, second probably to hydro. If you consider CO2 contribution/offset, then it is right on top as well.
A bank? First you have to ask yourself, "Why is a bank writing a paper on global warming?" The answer is, of course, to make money.
Banks do financial analysis of just about everything. It helps them and their clients make smart financial decisions. Making money and avoiding bad investments are both important to banks and clients. Banks do best when the entire economy is doing well, and hence everyone else.
In any "strawman" study like this (with only two possible courses), the "take my specific action" will ALWAYS be shown to be the smarter/cheaper/faster/better option.
They simply present two options and, in detail, show the differences and the underlying basis. They never claim there are no other options and in fact if you actually looked through the report you'd see that others are presented in various ways. You can't do a report like this and have 10 options listed. It provides a benchmark reference, nothing more. You can decide to dismiss it, and dismiss everything in it completely by labeling it a strawman if that is the excuse you need. That makes it easy to stick with your established vision and to not have to consider things that my challenge it.
There are plenty of ways to cause mass destruction. Chemicals are far more scary. (look up Bhopal). Fear can't drive us to be impractical and ignore proven solutions in hopes of a miracle breakthrough.
>Sorry, but that pesky little Shannon's Law gets in the way.....
The real question to me is how good can wireless get? Can it be the last mile answer for the masses? Good enough does not have to mean better than fiber.
Slashdot Mirror
No.
Unlike you. Mr change the laws of physics just like code in software, I do.
It's starting to look as if you need to look up the definition of load following. Clue #1 it is not about running units at full capacity. It's about running a unit at less than full capacity and it dramatically reduces life of anything where you have to frequently vary temperature to do it. Bringing full units on or off line is not load following.
You say things, but don't check them;
Here is just one of many sources that discuss Germany's load follow use of coal: http://cornerstonemag.net/the-...
Here is just one of many sources that discus Frances use of nuclear for load follow: http://ansnuclearcafe.org/2014...
Of course, you will find some reason to dismiss this real world information because it does not fit your imagined world scenarios. You will find your personal excuse to deny it, as you have in the past when I have presented sources, and you will in turn present no sources that back up your contentions. Why you will do this I don't know.
It is done a lot more than rarely. It is common practice in Germany. And, if you knew what you were talking about, you'd have know that even nuclear is used for load follow in France, and has been for quite some time. Again, real world and your world are two different things.
My statements stand up quite well to reality, where coal plants are often used for load follow. You can't deny that fact and so resort to your utter bullshit.
Do you deny that many coal plants are used for load follow?
In your world, your anecdotes are examples? I stand by my statements.
Your self proclImed experience doesn't align with the real world where coal plants have been used as load follow in many places. Rant on,....everyone has begun ignoring you anyhow.
Collecting data is the most fundamental part of science. I hope they get lots of good data.
Yes, but it also needs to be the right data. Studying symptoms of a problem may not help you solve it.
You manage it, just like managing windmill reliability, which even you admit is not good.
Not so much a problem if you design for it. Even most coal plants were not designed for load follow.
Actually, nuclear can load follow just fine. Its only that the existing fleet was not designed to do so. There is zero reason it cannot be variable, and the re are plenty of designs that allow it, either inherenlt or as an option.
Analogue baby monitors transmit and receives on CB frequencies or nearby. So everyone with a short wave radio or a CB rig could listen, an if the propagation is strong, signals from hundreds of kilometers away could be received by the baby monitor, and every trucker nearby could eavesdrop in your home. Nobody cares less about this problems and buys these, because are cheap, ruggend and consumes low power.
Exactly. I did a motorcycle road trip with a friend years ago, with some cheap helmet to helmet communicator radios. We heard a lot of babies on that trip, and an occasional mom talking to here baby. It did not deter me from using them later when I had my own.
Got it....., sorry. I do that too sometimes.
"I hate tailgaters. The only worse drivers on the road are the ones who drive so slow, you have to ride their rear bumper to get them to speed up." George Carlin
Not my job to accommodate them. .
True, your job may be to be a perfect asshole and impede others. But legally, and common sense-wise, and just as common courtesy, get over and drive properly.
Entitled assholes like you are actually the cause of most problems.
Sounds like you are one of those idiots that does not understand why passing left and keeping right helps everyone. And feels 'self entitled' to slow down others and impede traffic by lagging in the left.
But typically a lot of speeders are really, really low IQ types. you see them park on someone's rear bumper for miles flashing headlights, as if simply sliding to the right to pass the slowpoke is way too difficult for them..
No, they are trying to reinforce proper driving behavior. The person who is slowing down traffic in the wrong lane needs to pull over, and deserves some negative feedback from other drivers if he/she doesn't. Passing on the right is actually illegal in many places, and is generally less safe.
We just passed a law basically saying "keep right, except to pass". Judging by comments on news articles about the law, this concept is utterly incomprehensible for a large number of drivers. Any number of folks seemed to think that as long as they were doing the speed limit, this rule didn't apply to them, and that it was ok to stay in the left lane all day.
Glad you did. I think I heard New Jersey was working on a similar law that required you to move out of the way of other cars even if you were doing over the speed limit. So many idiots don't realize how much the screw up traffic and cause clustering of traffic because they just simply don't understand common sense.
Left lane laggards are even lower.
It would be good to see what progress is being made, but it will be always be a challenge to have these control systems anticipate what human drivers intend to do.
What you need to be asking is; What if they don't deploy wired broadband and just use wireless for every mile?
Would you be happy with a wireless connection for broadband being your only choice?
Because that's exactly what many people are going to get.
More profits that way.
There are plenty of people right now who don't have wired. They would certainly be happy with wireless if it were good enough, which was my question.
As for wireless preempting the availability of much better wired connections, its a plausible theory, but I wouldn't bank on it playing out that way.
Yeah, at this rate all of the nuclear accident deaths (~40k up to ~300k depending on who you trust).
Are you kidding me. What tabloid propoganda scare-group has been serving you the anti-nuke coolaid? You need to try diversifying your sources. As of now, deaths from Chernobyl are in the hundreds, and from any other nuclear power plant accident there are essentially zero deaths from radioactive exposure. The report on Fukushima just came out and they determined there will be no deaths or even illnesses attributable to the Fukushima event, that includes subsequent generations. I know it is hard to believe when you've lived hearing all the FUD. Try to be a little skeptical.
The areas you are talking about are very small patches, and there is no where that has zero microbial life. True, there are places that are impacted very close to the plant, but far from the 'thousands of acres'.
You can consider human life as an element, or you can ignore that element if you want. There are many factors, cost, practicality, certainty, reliability, etc. If you consider human health overall, nuclear power has been one of the most advantageous sources of energy ever devices, second probably to hydro. If you consider CO2 contribution/offset, then it is right on top as well.
A bank? First you have to ask yourself, "Why is a bank writing a paper on global warming?" The answer is, of course, to make money.
Banks do financial analysis of just about everything. It helps them and their clients make smart financial decisions. Making money and avoiding bad investments are both important to banks and clients. Banks do best when the entire economy is doing well, and hence everyone else.
In any "strawman" study like this (with only two possible courses), the "take my specific action" will ALWAYS be shown to be the smarter/cheaper/faster/better option.
They simply present two options and, in detail, show the differences and the underlying basis. They never claim there are no other options and in fact if you actually looked through the report you'd see that others are presented in various ways. You can't do a report like this and have 10 options listed. It provides a benchmark reference, nothing more. You can decide to dismiss it, and dismiss everything in it completely by labeling it a strawman if that is the excuse you need. That makes it easy to stick with your established vision and to not have to consider things that my challenge it.
Wasteland? How about thriving natural areas.
There are plenty of ways to cause mass destruction. Chemicals are far more scary. (look up Bhopal). Fear can't drive us to be impractical and ignore proven solutions in hopes of a miracle breakthrough.
>Sorry, but that pesky little Shannon's Law gets in the way.....
The real question to me is how good can wireless get? Can it be the last mile answer for the masses? Good enough does not have to mean better than fiber.