An important aspect the author overlooks is that many residential customers prefer aesthetics over optimization, and therefore the panels are often mounted as closely in parallel with the plane of the roof as practical. It is one of the reasons residential based solar, on average, will always trail centrally based, larger scale solar in capacity factor. Centrally based solar installations are optimized for their location. (OTOH, residential power delivery suffers lower transmission/distribution line loss factors than centrally located, but that is a bit off topic)
The point regarding the incentives simply being for total production & not considering time is true, its one I’ve made here on/. before. Existing incentives drive installations that are optimal from a total MWH generation standpoint over those that lengthen the generation window. These incentives pretty much take tracking mechanisms out of play in favor of adding more panels for the same cost.
If the goal is clean air generation per $ invested, then generating less just to lengthen the window doesn’t make much sense. It is an energy cost increase on an already costly energy source. This guy is proposing that the government spend even more on incentives for installations that will produce less power overall. Given the existing infrastructure and the fact that other sources will continue to fill in the demand profile when renewables can’t, the proposed changes don’t seem to accomplish much other that increase cost.
I think it is perfectly okay to ask those questions and investigate.
No, its not. At least not in the public eye. Imagine the hammer that would come down on anyone proposing a study to prove intelligence differences among the races. Their motives would be attacked & they would be attacked.
And what would be the point? The results would only be accepted by society if they showed there were no discernible differences.
I'm not proposing we should do such studies, I just think its clear that the scientific community would not dare to try.
For the same price point, a lot of people would choose a windows machine over a chromebook. Actually, now you can get low end windows 'streamers' for under $200 bucks (see HP Stream 11 for example). A good deal if that meets your needs
But, public schools should not go with Windows because its an administrative burden to support that OS on hundreds of machines. Chrome OS & associated Google cloud services are simple, cheap, and well suited to the task.
"should be able to" or "it would be a nice feature"?
You don't have to lie about the kids age, just set up an additional account in your own name and allow the kid to use it. What real advantage would a subsidiary account have?
Our 6th grade STEM school started using them recently as well. They do what they are supposed to do, that is, give the kids a tool for researching, preparing papers and presentations, submitting work, keeping track of certain scheduled items, and communicating. They are not computer science development tools, and are not meant to be.
The nice thing is the kids can access their school google accounts from home computers as well, allowing a lot of flexibility.
I think you oversimplify things. There is also great incentive with power companies to keep the power running and minimize the high cost of repairs, but there are always areas where there is an older infrastructure that causes problems, or distribution network areas that rely on a small number of feeders, etc. There will always be some balance between what they pay to improve and how much continual maintenance cost they are willing to incur, and the price charged the customer. If you want paybacks for outages, then your normal bill will go up.
Even for regulated companies, when its time to ask for a rate increase, it helps when the customers are happier. Some companies do a much better job than others. I bet you could probably show that those companies that operate the most reliable transmission and distribution networks have higher profit margins.
Then, if you want to include batteries in the mix, enter more bad stuff in the environment. And that's all fine, its just interesting to see how those so quick to maximize the downsides of nuclear will minimize the downsides of things like solar.
It all depends on the reactor design, load follow in PWRs can be done perfectly safely. Many plants were not designed to follow load, there was no need and the economics made sense to plan to run at full load all the time.
I find it much more probable that life begins in milder, friendlier conditions and then adapts over time to harsher environments. Of course, everything is relative.
I think the engineering problem with filling it is more akin to cutting the feed at the right point more than anything to not rupture the vessel that is being filled.
Not really a problem. They likely just release a set volume of gas at a given temperature.
Slashdot Mirror
so what orientation creates the most power without considering rates?
It depends on where you live. There are places on line that can give you the tilt for your area. For example;
http://energyworksus.com/solar...
Thats just nuance, and you know it. Would "testing a hypothesis" make you feel better?
An important aspect the author overlooks is that many residential customers prefer aesthetics over optimization, and therefore the panels are often mounted as closely in parallel with the plane of the roof as practical. It is one of the reasons residential based solar, on average, will always trail centrally based, larger scale solar in capacity factor. Centrally based solar installations are optimized for their location. (OTOH, residential power delivery suffers lower transmission/distribution line loss factors than centrally located, but that is a bit off topic)
/. before. Existing incentives drive installations that are optimal from a total MWH generation standpoint over those that lengthen the generation window. These incentives pretty much take tracking mechanisms out of play in favor of adding more panels for the same cost.
The point regarding the incentives simply being for total production & not considering time is true, its one I’ve made here on
If the goal is clean air generation per $ invested, then generating less just to lengthen the window doesn’t make much sense. It is an energy cost increase on an already costly energy source. This guy is proposing that the government spend even more on incentives for installations that will produce less power overall. Given the existing infrastructure and the fact that other sources will continue to fill in the demand profile when renewables can’t, the proposed changes don’t seem to accomplish much other that increase cost.
Your response completely validates my point. Thanks.
I think it is perfectly okay to ask those questions and investigate.
No, its not. At least not in the public eye. Imagine the hammer that would come down on anyone proposing a study to prove intelligence differences among the races. Their motives would be attacked & they would be attacked.
And what would be the point? The results would only be accepted by society if they showed there were no discernible differences.
I'm not proposing we should do such studies, I just think its clear that the scientific community would not dare to try.
For the same price point, a lot of people would choose a windows machine over a chromebook. Actually, now you can get low end windows 'streamers' for under $200 bucks (see HP Stream 11 for example). A good deal if that meets your needs
But, public schools should not go with Windows because its an administrative burden to support that OS on hundreds of machines. Chrome OS & associated Google cloud services are simple, cheap, and well suited to the task.
"should be able to" or "it would be a nice feature"?
You don't have to lie about the kids age, just set up an additional account in your own name and allow the kid to use it. What real advantage would a subsidiary account have?
The schools that distribute the chromebooks can set up student accounts, no problem.
Our 6th grade STEM school started using them recently as well. They do what they are supposed to do, that is, give the kids a tool for researching, preparing papers and presentations, submitting work, keeping track of certain scheduled items, and communicating. They are not computer science development tools, and are not meant to be.
The nice thing is the kids can access their school google accounts from home computers as well, allowing a lot of flexibility.
I think you oversimplify things. There is also great incentive with power companies to keep the power running and minimize the high cost of repairs, but there are always areas where there is an older infrastructure that causes problems, or distribution network areas that rely on a small number of feeders, etc. There will always be some balance between what they pay to improve and how much continual maintenance cost they are willing to incur, and the price charged the customer. If you want paybacks for outages, then your normal bill will go up.
Even for regulated companies, when its time to ask for a rate increase, it helps when the customers are happier. Some companies do a much better job than others. I bet you could probably show that those companies that operate the most reliable transmission and distribution networks have higher profit margins.
That pretty much sums it up. Its a wrap.
You missed the "credible" part in my request.
"deponised"? Did you make that up?
I see you avoided the processing chemical portion. Pretty nasty stuff, and why do you assume its all being handled so responsibly?
http://www.electronicstakeback...
Then, if you want to include batteries in the mix, enter more bad stuff in the environment. And that's all fine, its just interesting to see how those so quick to maximize the downsides of nuclear will minimize the downsides of things like solar.
Not a good start thus far, CSP is looking like a loser.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/ja...
Fukushima "deadly"? Please cite a credible source for that.
It all depends on the reactor design, load follow in PWRs can be done perfectly safely. Many plants were not designed to follow load, there was no need and the economics made sense to plan to run at full load all the time.
How clean is solar PV manufacturing?
Yeah, its so insightful, isn't it?
Your wild guess about the future is as good as any.
I find it much more probable that life begins in milder, friendlier conditions and then adapts over time to harsher environments. Of course, everything is relative.
This text does not tell what the balloon is inflated with
Maybe hype?
Yes, I noticed no response alerts as well.
Try some critical thinking on the hot air idea. Look at the pictures as well, they clearly are filling the balloons from a compressed gas source.
I think the engineering problem with filling it is more akin to cutting the feed at the right point more than anything to not rupture the vessel that is being filled.
Not really a problem. They likely just release a set volume of gas at a given temperature.
Just think how much energy it would take to maintain the hot air. Its simply not practical.