Maybe the snow won't collect on the panels, as another poster stated ice is a bigger issue where he/she lives. But it really doesn't matter under cloudy, blizzard conditions anyhow, not much sunlight is reaching those panels.
Loss of offsite power is an analyzed condition and the plant's license requires it to shut down when offsite power is lost. The safety analysis shows that the plant is in a higher risk level as it becomes reliant on its emergency diesels should another severe accident occur at that time. (Even though in those situations, the plant is designed to still be able to cope with all design basis accidents)
There is no license requirement to shut down in anticipation of a loss of offsite power, and the plant is designed to handle it safely.
Plants keep running through major storms all the time. This is particular to the local grid.
Nothing that mdsolar wrote was untrue, and it didn't even sound judgemental.
To be fair, the title was changed by samzenpus. mdsolar's submittal title said something like "unreliable nuclear plant shut down....". An attempt to mislead on the reason for the shutdown.
A quick Google on Pilgrim Capacity Factor yields a spreadsheet that shows 6 recent years of operation with an average capacity factor of 90$. That is quite good.
What specific claims did you debunk about people's suffering? I think you just spewed irreverent points then started spewing unrelated descriptions of contaminant behavior with no real point to what it all means to people. And you continue to bolster my original point, obsessing about the nuclear event and ignoring a tragedy on much greater scale.
Emergency shutdown means the reactor can be restarted in "a couple of weeks"
Absolutely not true. It can restart rather quickly, it depends on the reason for shutdown.
And beside that irrelevant point, don't forget that nuclear plants all over the north-east have kept running reliably through the recent rash of heavy winter storms. The shutdown at Pilgrim is because of reliability issues with the local transmission/distribution network and expectation that it will go down.
Well, read the article and realize it is the anticipated loss of the transmission system for which the plant is being shut down. That should have been the headline.
The plant will be shut down in anticipation that the transmission grid will suffer problems and not be able to take the power. It has nothing to do with the plant itself or inability to run through the storm. Plants all over the northeast have kept the lights on for millions throughout that rash of harsh winter weather we have been having. Pilgrim is a reliable station still going strong after many years.
Snow covered solar panels won't be very useful, that is for certain. Windmills are shut down in blizzard conditions. Thankfully other sources are available.
Interesting paragraph. Thanks. It does back your point, but also note that was 6 years ago and though the market is there, it still hasn't proven to be profitable yet and that is was really gets things moving. The Volt hasn't exactly "reversed years of dwindling market share" for GM, and other industry execs have had less enthusiastic takes.
I think the biggest impact Tesla will have is in mass battery production as they plan, but that is in the future, not the present.
You miss the point, or simply work really hard to avoid it. The frame of the discussion, from the OP downward, was pretty clear. Nobody expects exact numbers, but there are release numbers, and even if you assume they are wrong you can use that as a starting point.
Your last paragraphs are simply an attempt to legitimize yourself without saying anything concrete. I don't care what your positions are, you speak so generically it doesn't really matter. I never asked for a push to soften any safety policy. I think what we have is quite conservative and serves its purpose. What I care about is the general misperception of the associated risks, and those that perpetuate them with incomplete information and those that play on them to drive policy through fear. I do point out those statements which feed those misperceptions. I ask for context, but rarely get it in return. Rather, I get long-winded replies trying to justify the behavior.
I don't think the people who come up with these schemes have ever sat a child in front of a computer, and watched while they tried to learn something from it.
You meant we can't just give away a bunch of gadgets and underprivileged kids will all of a sudden start learning? There's got to be an easy way.
No, I don't even have the resources to buy a $35K car, and I make a decent living. I buy used cars in cash. We need 2 cars, I paid less for both together and they are very good cars. I also have an old truck that I used occasionally. Buying a $35K EV would be a huge financial mistake for me.
Exactly. It didn't take subsidies for the Iphone to sell like mad, it won't for EV's either. Once the product capabilities and mass market needs match. And when the market gets big enough, there will be many products and suppliers bringing the price down through competition.
I think it already has -- the model S showed the auto industry that there is a market for electric cars, if those cars provide a good customer experience
Tesla was not first to market with an EV. They did move first into the high end market, but what will matter is the lower end mass market where existing EVs are trying to sell. And, Tesla has yet to make money even though they are selling high end and have subsidies working in their favor, so that's not exactly the model that others will rush to.
The EV market would evolve, with or without subsidies, and with or without Tesla. That some wealthy folks that don't need the money are getting it isn't really helping anybody expect them and Tesla.
Power plant 'systemic' efficiency varies widely based on the generating technology.
I am curious that you say fuel tanker efficiency is 80%, that would indicate that a tanker uses 20% of the energy contained in the fuel it transports. I don't know what the right number is, but I would be very surprised if it used that much energy.
But, with that said, I'm not sure that is the right way to compare overall energy benefit anyhow. If you were burning oil for electrical generation vs burning gas in a car, the car would likely show a greater systemic energy efficiency. What would be more interesting is total energy put into the system vs total mileage extracted. Calculating that would be quite challenging, IMO.
The most important knowledge is understanding of the customer's business. That is not likely to be engineering, and most web applications and sites are not developed to serve an engineering need, but rather a marketing, communications, financial, or business process need. Industrial engineering might be useful generically, and general systems engineering uses requirements management techniques that are valuable no matter what you do.
It is just a figure of speech, and if you have any understanding of the market you would feel pretty confident that the assumption is accurate. I don't see you denying that it is probable, so you resort to a petty smart ass response that adds nothing to the conversation.
And GMAFB about "professionals making the law". You must live under a rock if you think these laws are not as much political/lobby driven as they are substantiated.
So, if you don't believe most Tesla owners are relatively wealthy, please say so, otherwise you really have not point other than to show us you are mad.
Giving a few wealthy folks money to buy high cost EV's that often aren't even their primary vehicle isn't going to do much to help the global warming situation.
Our upside might be much greater if that money were used for development and improvement of solutions.
I'd like to see the average income for a Tesla owner, I imagine it is relatively high. I also imagine most would have bought a Tesla regardless of the tax break, so I agree we should not be subsidizing the sales of cars for higher income individuals.
That money should go into R&D and infrastructure where eventually a larger percentage of the people can benefit.
You need as many as you need. You need enough to keep people from waiting for someone else to finish. There needs to be a charger available for a person when they pull up. That number is only determined by the number of people that need a recharge on the go, which should be a smaller percentage of overall EV drivers since most plan around the need for road charging.
Layout is irrelevant, it is simply a function of number of chargers needed and space available.
Slashdot Mirror
Maybe the snow won't collect on the panels, as another poster stated ice is a bigger issue where he/she lives. But it really doesn't matter under cloudy, blizzard conditions anyhow, not much sunlight is reaching those panels.
True.
Loss of offsite power is an analyzed condition and the plant's license requires it to shut down when offsite power is lost. The safety analysis shows that the plant is in a higher risk level as it becomes reliant on its emergency diesels should another severe accident occur at that time. (Even though in those situations, the plant is designed to still be able to cope with all design basis accidents)
There is no license requirement to shut down in anticipation of a loss of offsite power, and the plant is designed to handle it safely.
Plants keep running through major storms all the time. This is particular to the local grid.
Nothing that mdsolar wrote was untrue, and it didn't even sound judgemental.
To be fair, the title was changed by samzenpus. mdsolar's submittal title said something like "unreliable nuclear plant shut down....". An attempt to mislead on the reason for the shutdown.
That plant is not known for being run well.
A quick Google on Pilgrim Capacity Factor yields a spreadsheet that shows 6 recent years of operation with an average capacity factor of 90$. That is quite good.
Windmills are shut down in very high winds to prevent damage.
What specific claims did you debunk about people's suffering? I think you just spewed irreverent points then started spewing unrelated descriptions of contaminant behavior with no real point to what it all means to people. And you continue to bolster my original point, obsessing about the nuclear event and ignoring a tragedy on much greater scale.
And for that, I am done wasting my time.
Yeah, snow covered solar panels and windmills shut down during blizzards aren't much help in these conditions. We need diversity.
Emergency shutdown means the reactor can be restarted in "a couple of weeks"
Absolutely not true. It can restart rather quickly, it depends on the reason for shutdown.
And beside that irrelevant point, don't forget that nuclear plants all over the north-east have kept running reliably through the recent rash of heavy winter storms. The shutdown at Pilgrim is because of reliability issues with the local transmission/distribution network and expectation that it will go down.
Well, read the article and realize it is the anticipated loss of the transmission system for which the plant is being shut down. That should have been the headline.
The plant will be shut down in anticipation that the transmission grid will suffer problems and not be able to take the power. It has nothing to do with the plant itself or inability to run through the storm. Plants all over the northeast have kept the lights on for millions throughout that rash of harsh winter weather we have been having. Pilgrim is a reliable station still going strong after many years.
Snow covered solar panels won't be very useful, that is for certain. Windmills are shut down in blizzard conditions. Thankfully other sources are available.
Interesting paragraph. Thanks. It does back your point, but also note that was 6 years ago and though the market is there, it still hasn't proven to be profitable yet and that is was really gets things moving. The Volt hasn't exactly "reversed years of dwindling market share" for GM, and other industry execs have had less enthusiastic takes.
I think the biggest impact Tesla will have is in mass battery production as they plan, but that is in the future, not the present.
, and everyone else who will buy an electric car that wouldn't have existed without Tesla's demonstration of how to profitably sell EVs
A very speculative statement, not to mention the fact that Tesla has been losing money.
Maybe just load em up with Baby Einstein and Little Einstein videos! Then nobody even needs to watch over the kids.
You miss the point, or simply work really hard to avoid it. The frame of the discussion, from the OP downward, was pretty clear. Nobody expects exact numbers, but there are release numbers, and even if you assume they are wrong you can use that as a starting point.
Your last paragraphs are simply an attempt to legitimize yourself without saying anything concrete. I don't care what your positions are, you speak so generically it doesn't really matter. I never asked for a push to soften any safety policy. I think what we have is quite conservative and serves its purpose. What I care about is the general misperception of the associated risks, and those that perpetuate them with incomplete information and those that play on them to drive policy through fear. I do point out those statements which feed those misperceptions. I ask for context, but rarely get it in return. Rather, I get long-winded replies trying to justify the behavior.
I don't think the people who come up with these schemes have ever sat a child in front of a computer, and watched while they tried to learn something from it.
You meant we can't just give away a bunch of gadgets and underprivileged kids will all of a sudden start learning? There's got to be an easy way.
No, I don't even have the resources to buy a $35K car, and I make a decent living. I buy used cars in cash. We need 2 cars, I paid less for both together and they are very good cars. I also have an old truck that I used occasionally. Buying a $35K EV would be a huge financial mistake for me.
Exactly. It didn't take subsidies for the Iphone to sell like mad, it won't for EV's either. Once the product capabilities and mass market needs match. And when the market gets big enough, there will be many products and suppliers bringing the price down through competition.
I think it already has -- the model S showed the auto industry that there is a market for electric cars, if those cars provide a good customer experience
Tesla was not first to market with an EV. They did move first into the high end market, but what will matter is the lower end mass market where existing EVs are trying to sell. And, Tesla has yet to make money even though they are selling high end and have subsidies working in their favor, so that's not exactly the model that others will rush to.
The EV market would evolve, with or without subsidies, and with or without Tesla. That some wealthy folks that don't need the money are getting it isn't really helping anybody expect them and Tesla.
Power plant 'systemic' efficiency varies widely based on the generating technology.
I am curious that you say fuel tanker efficiency is 80%, that would indicate that a tanker uses 20% of the energy contained in the fuel it transports. I don't know what the right number is, but I would be very surprised if it used that much energy.
But, with that said, I'm not sure that is the right way to compare overall energy benefit anyhow. If you were burning oil for electrical generation vs burning gas in a car, the car would likely show a greater systemic energy efficiency. What would be more interesting is total energy put into the system vs total mileage extracted. Calculating that would be quite challenging, IMO.
As previously discussed, it is essential that you know how to send any type of document securely to your manager. :-P
I'd say that would be a "key" understanding.
The most important knowledge is understanding of the customer's business. That is not likely to be engineering, and most web applications and sites are not developed to serve an engineering need, but rather a marketing, communications, financial, or business process need. Industrial engineering might be useful generically, and general systems engineering uses requirements management techniques that are valuable no matter what you do.
It is just a figure of speech, and if you have any understanding of the market you would feel pretty confident that the assumption is accurate. I don't see you denying that it is probable, so you resort to a petty smart ass response that adds nothing to the conversation.
And GMAFB about "professionals making the law". You must live under a rock if you think these laws are not as much political/lobby driven as they are substantiated.
So, if you don't believe most Tesla owners are relatively wealthy, please say so, otherwise you really have not point other than to show us you are mad.
Giving a few wealthy folks money to buy high cost EV's that often aren't even their primary vehicle isn't going to do much to help the global warming situation.
Our upside might be much greater if that money were used for development and improvement of solutions.
I'd like to see the average income for a Tesla owner, I imagine it is relatively high. I also imagine most would have bought a Tesla regardless of the tax break, so I agree we should not be subsidizing the sales of cars for higher income individuals.
That money should go into R&D and infrastructure where eventually a larger percentage of the people can benefit.
You don't necessarily need more stations.
You need as many as you need. You need enough to keep people from waiting for someone else to finish. There needs to be a charger available for a person when they pull up. That number is only determined by the number of people that need a recharge on the go, which should be a smaller percentage of overall EV drivers since most plan around the need for road charging.
Layout is irrelevant, it is simply a function of number of chargers needed and space available.