Yeah, I like it too. I was skeptical, but it serves a nice niche if you like certain web content, and easy to move between TVs. Just wish it had some level of IR control in addition to wifi.
Not only a bullshitter, but clear case of willfull ignorance. Cite your sources or admit it.
You have already proven you ignore facts and obvious data, so what good is it to have a discussion until you admit it. You didn't like the variability in the total wind generation chart for Germany, so you fabricated the contention that in Germany wind is turned on and off for peaking, and conventional sources are not used for peaking. You made it up, and you won't admit it.
I have shown you the actual data from Germany. The charts clearly show there is no correlation between wind output and peaking. In fact, there are multiple points on the charts that show high wind output during low energy usage, and low wind output during high energy usage. The graphs also show how conventional power correlates with peaking, clearly with zero ambiguity. But you ignore it and still stick with your fabricated contentions.
I have shown you the actual law that required use of all available wind power, all the time. You then said it might not be actual law! A clear display of willful ignorance.
AND NOW YOU ARE IN A CORNER AND MAKING UP NEW SHIT THAT YOU CAN'T BACK UP! You contend that "Wind has a lot of down time for maintenance". But ignore the fact that even if it were true, it would not be noticeable on the charts because you already took pains to point out how small each wind generator is. So now you contradict your own bullshit with even more bullshit, none of which you can cite a source for. I will be sure to remind you in the future that you contend wind needs a lot of down time for maintenance.
You are a bullshitter who makes stuff up. Cite your sources or admit it.
One can't have a productive conversation with a proven bullshitter. You are a bullshitter who makes stuff up. Cite your sources or admit it.
You have already proven you ignore facts and obvious data, so what good is it to have a discussion until you admit it. You didn't like the variability in the total wind generation chart for Germany, so you fabricated the contention that in Germany wind is turned on and off for peaking, and conventional sources are not used for peaking. You made it up, and you won't admit it.
I have shown you the actual data from Germany. The charts clearly show there is no correlation between wind output and peaking. In fact, there are multiple points on the charts that show high wind output during low energy usage, and low wind output during high energy usage. The graphs also show how conventional power correlates with peaking, clearly with zero ambiguity. But you ignore it and still stick with your fabricated contentions.
I have shown you the actual law that required use of all available wind power, all the time. You then said it might not be actual law! A clear display of willful ignorance.
AND NOW YOU ARE IN A CORNER AND MAKING UP NEW SHIT THAT YOU CAN'T BACK UP! You contend that "Wind has a lot of down time for maintenance". But ignore the fact that even if it were true, it would not be noticeable on the charts because you already took pains to point out how small each wind generator is. So now you contradict your own bullshit with even more bullshit, none of which you can cite a source for. I will be sure to remind you in the future that you contend wind needs a lot of down time for maintenance.
You are a bullshitter who makes stuff up. Cite your sources or admit it.
Why can't you be honest and admit you are a bullshitter? You are a bullshitter who makes stuff up. Cite your sources or admit it.
You have already proven you ignore facts and obvious data, so what good is it to have a discussion until you admit it. You didn't like the variability in the total wind generation chart for Germany, so you fabricated the contention that in Germany wind is turned on and off for peaking, and conventional sources are not used for peaking. You made it up, and you won't admit it.
I have shown you the actual data from Germany. The charts clearly show there is no correlation between wind output and peaking. In fact, there are multiple points on the charts that show high wind output during low energy usage, and low wind output during high energy usage. The graphs also show how conventional power correlates with peaking, clearly with zero ambiguity. But you ignore it and still stick with your fabricated contentions.
I have shown you the actual law that required use of all available wind power, all the time. You then said it might not be actual law! A clear display of willful ignorance.
AND NOW YOU ARE IN A CORNER AND MAKING UP NEW SHIT THAT YOU CAN'T BACK UP! You contend that "Wind has a lot of down time for maintenance". But ignore the fact that even if it were true, it would not be noticeable on the charts because you already took pains to point out how small each wind generator is. So now you contradict your own bullshit with even more bullshit, none of which you can cite a source for. I will be sure to remind you in the future that you contend wind needs a lot of down time for maintenance.
You are a bullshitter who makes stuff up. Cite your sources or admit it.
Do you really like being a proven bullshitter? Its your own fault. You are a bullshitter who makes stuff up. Cite your sources or admit it.
You have already proven you ignore facts and obvious data, so what good is it to have a discussion until you admit it. You didn't like the variability in the total wind generation chart for Germany, so you fabricated the contention that in Germany wind is turned on and off for peaking, and conventional sources are not used for peaking. You made it up, and you won't admit it.
I have shown you the actual data from Germany. The charts clearly show there is no correlation between wind output and peaking. In fact, there are multiple points on the charts that show high wind output during low energy usage, and low wind output during high energy usage. The graphs also show how conventional power correlates with peaking, clearly with zero ambiguity. But you ignore it and still stick with your fabricated contentions.
I have shown you the actual law that required use of all available wind power, all the time. You then said it might not be actual law! A clear display of willful ignorance.
AND NOW YOU ARE IN A CORNER AND MAKING UP NEW SHIT THAT YOU CAN'T BACK UP! You contend that "Wind has a lot of down time for maintenance". But ignore the fact that even if it were true, it would not be noticeable on the charts because you already took pains to point out how small each wind generator is. So now you contradict your own bullshit with even more bullshit, none of which you can cite a source for. I will be sure to remind you in the future that you contend wind needs a lot of down time for maintenance.
You are a bullshitter who makes stuff up. Cite your sources or admit it.
I can't have a reasonable converstion with a bullshitter? You are a bullshitter who makes stuff up. Cite your sources or admit it.
You have already proven you ignore facts and obvious data, so what good is it to have a discussion until you admit it. You didn't like the variability in the total wind generation chart for Germany, so you fabricated the contention that in Germany wind is turned on and off for peaking, and conventional sources are not used for peaking. You made it up, and you won't admit it.
I have shown you the actual data from Germany. The charts clearly show there is no correlation between wind output and peaking. In fact, there are multiple points on the charts that show high wind output during low energy usage, and low wind output during high energy usage. The graphs also show how conventional power correlates with peaking, clearly with zero ambiguity. But you ignore it and still stick with your fabricated contentions.
I have shown you the actual law that required use of all available wind power, all the time. You then said it might not be actual law! A clear display of willful ignorance.
AND NOW YOU ARE IN A CORNER AND MAKING UP NEW SHIT THAT YOU CAN'T BACK UP! You contend that "Wind has a lot of down time for maintenance". But ignore the fact that even if it were true, it would not be noticeable on the charts because you already took pains to point out how small each wind generator is. So now you contradict your own bullshit with even more bullshit, none of which you can cite a source for. I will be sure to remind you in the future that you contend wind needs a lot of down time for maintenance.
You are a bullshitter who makes stuff up. Cite your sources or admit it.
Why should I converse with a bullshitter? You are a bullshitter who makes stuff up. Cite your sources or admit it.
You have already proven you ignore facts and obvious data, so what good is it to have a discussion until you admit it. You didn't like the variability in the total wind generation chart for Germany, so you fabricated the contention that in Germany wind is turned on and off for peaking, and conventional sources are not used for peaking. You made it up, and you won't admit it.
I have shown you the actual data from Germany. The charts clearly show there is no correlation between wind output and peaking. In fact, there are multiple points on the charts that show high wind output during low energy usage, and low wind output during high energy usage. The graphs also show how conventional power correlates with peaking, clearly with zero ambiguity. But you ignore it and still stick with your fabricated contentions.
I have shown you the actual law that required use of all available wind power, all the time. You then said it might not be actual law! A clear display of willful ignorance.
AND NOW YOU ARE IN A CORNER AND MAKING UP NEW SHIT THAT YOU CAN'T BACK UP! You contend that "Wind has a lot of down time for maintenance". But ignore the fact that even if it were true, it would not be noticeable on the charts because you already took pains to point out how small each wind generator is. So now you contradict your own bullshit with even more bullshit, none of which you can cite a source for. I will be sure to remind you in the future that you contend wind needs a lot of down time for maintenance.
You are a bullshitter who makes stuff up. Cite your sources or admit it.
Anyone reading this thread can clearly tell you are a bullshitter who makes stuff up. Cite your sources or admit it.
You have already proven you ignore facts and obvious data, so what good is it to have a discussion until you admit it. You didn't like the variability in the total wind generation chart for Germany, so you fabricated the contention that in Germany wind is turned on and off for peaking, and conventional sources are not used for peaking. You made it up, and you won't admit it.
I have shown you the actual data from Germany. The charts clearly show there is no correlation between wind output and peaking. In fact, there are multiple points on the charts that show high wind output during low energy usage, and low wind output during high energy usage. The graphs also show how conventional power correlates with peaking, clearly with zero ambiguity. But you ignore it and still stick with your fabricated contentions.
I have shown you the actual law that required use of all available wind power, all the time. You then said it might not be actual law! A clear display of willful ignorance.
AND NOW YOU ARE IN A CORNER AND MAKING UP NEW SHIT THAT YOU CAN'T BACK UP! You contend that "Wind has a lot of down time for maintenance". But ignore the fact that even if it were true, it would not be noticeable on the charts because you already took pains to point out how small each wind generator is. So now you contradict your own bullshit with even more bullshit, none of which you can cite a source for. I will be sure to remind you in the future that you contend wind needs a lot of down time for maintenance.
You are a bullshitter who makes stuff up. Cite your sources or admit it.
You have already proven you ignore facts and obvious data, so what good is it to have a discussion until you admit it. You didn't like the variability in the total wind generation chart for Germany, so you fabricated the contention that in Germany wind is turned on and off for peaking, and conventional sources are not used for peaking. You made it up, and you won't admit it.
I have shown you the actual data from Germany. The charts clearly show there is no correlation between wind output and peaking. In fact, there are multiple points on the charts that show high wind output during low energy usage, and low wind output during high energy usage. The graphs also show how conventional power correlates with peaking, clearly with zero ambiguity. But you ignore it and still stick with your fabricated contentions.
I have shown you the actual law that required use of all available wind power, all the time. You then said it might not be actual law! A clear display of willful ignorance.
AND NOW YOU ARE IN A CORNER AND MAKING UP NEW SHIT THAT YOU CAN'T BACK UP! You contend that "Wind has a lot of down time for maintenance". But ignore the fact that even if it were true, it would not be noticeable on the charts because you already took pains to point out how small each wind generator is. So now you contradict your own bullshit with even more bullshit, none of which you can cite a source for. I will be sure to remind you in the future that you contend wind needs a lot of down time for maintenance.
You are a bullshitter who makes stuff up. Cite your sources or admit it.
dbIII, you are a bullshitter who makes stuff up. Cite your sources or admit it.
You have already proven you ignore facts and obvious data, so what good is it to have a discussion until you admit it. You didn't like the variability in the total wind generation chart for Germany, so you fabricated the contention that in Germany wind is turned on and off for peaking, and conventional sources are not used for peaking. You made it up, and you won't admit it.
I have shown you the actual data from Germany. The charts clearly show there is no correlation between wind output and peaking. In fact, there are multiple points on the charts that show high wind output during low energy usage, and low wind output during high energy usage. The graphs also show how conventional power correlates with peaking, clearly with zero ambiguity. But you ignore it and still stick with your fabricated contentions.
I have shown you the actual law that required use of all available wind power, all the time. You then said it might not be actual law! A clear display of willful ignorance.
AND NOW YOU ARE IN A CORNER AND MAKING UP NEW SHIT THAT YOU CAN'T BACK UP! You contend that "Wind has a lot of down time for maintenance". But ignore the fact that even if it were true, it would not be noticeable on the charts because you already took pains to point out how small each wind generator is. So now you contradict your own bullshit with even more bullshit, none of which you can cite a source for. I will be sure to remind you in the future that you contend wind needs a lot of down time for maintenance.
You are a bullshitter who makes stuff up. Cite your sources or admit it.
dbIII, you are a bullshitter who makes stuff up. Cite your sources or admit it.
You have already proven you ignore facts and obvious data, so what good is it to have a discussion until you admit you fabricated the contention that in Germany wind is turned on and off for peaking. You made it up, and you won't admit it.
I have shown you the actual data from Germany. The charts that clearly show no correlation between wind output and peaking. In fact, there are multiple points on the chart that have high wind output during low energy usage, and low wind output during high energy usage. The graphs also showed how convetional power correlates with peaking, clearly with zero ambiguity. But you ingore it and still stick with your fabricated contentions.
I have show you the actual law that required use of all available wind power, all the time. You then said it might not be actual law! A clear display of willful ignorance.
AND NOW YOU ARE IN A CORNER AND MAKING UP NEW SHIT THAT YOU CAN'T BACK UP! You contend that "Wind has a lot of down time for maintenance". But ignore the fact that even if it were true, it would not be noticeable on the charts becuase you already took pains to point out how small each wind generator is. So now you contradict your own bullshit with even more bullshit, none of which you can cite a source for. I will be sure to remind you in the future that you contend wind needs a lot of down time for maintenance.
You are a bullshitter who makes stuff up. Cite your sources or admit it.
Are you really now saying that the energy act is not law? You can simply look it up. You are IGNORANT, and intentionally so. The law requires the use of ALL AVAILABLE WIND AND SOLAR, ALL THE TIME. JUST FUCKING READ IT AND ADMIT YOU FABRICATED THE IDEA THAT WIND IS TURNED ON AND OFF FOR PEAKING! You made it up, and you wont' admit it. Why won't you admit it? I can guess.
Grid operators must, immediately and as a priority, purchase, transmit and
distribute the entire available quantity of electricity from a renewable energy
installation (Section 8 EEG).
Germany has enough wind turbines built that the total generation charts show a good representation of the wind generation profile across the country. But, you have already proven you ignore facts and obvious data, so what good is it to have this discussion until you admit you fabricated the contention that wind is turned on and off for peaking. You made it up, and you won't admit it.
You are a bullshitter who makes stuff up. Cite your source or admit it.
Exactly. The guy may be wrong, partially wrong, or right, but to simply dismiss the points of someone with his experience is not exactly a wise thing to do.
Margins and profit margins are two different things, don't get them confused. I think the point is that the high end market for Tesla may have limited upside, and therefore they will need to move significantly more to the lower end to have long term sustainable growth. Time will tell, but its not wise to completely ignore a person who has significant business insight and experience, there is usually some underlying basis.
That would not be a good question. It needs to be on fundamentals and not purposed toward hot button topics. Simple stuff about chemicals, physics, engineering principals, etc.
That doesn't surprise me. MSNBC is 100% politically driven, and CNN is basically the "Copy News Network". Financial news sites on the web generally do the best job.
It would be interesting to have a 'science challenge' for all the major news outlet science and technology reporters. They would all be required to answer a series of basic scientific questions, or explain some phenomena. They could even team up. Done properly, I feel it would expose great ignorance.
There is a lot of poor science reported on Fox news. And there is just as much reported on every other network and major media outlet. If you don't recognize that, you may be part of the problem.
The biggest problem is that anyone can call themselves a scientist. There really is not definition of what it takes to be qualified as a scientist. One who practices science regardless of comptence?
The press is much to blame, never checking qualifications or accomplishments when reporting the work of so called 'scientists". Due to that, so much bullshit is promulgated that never comes to fruition, people naturally become skeptical. Promises of fuel cell being ready for mass adoption, promises of medical cures on the way, etc.
The media should also distinguish between engineers and scientists, but the fact they never do is a great indicator that they don't have a clue. That falls back on the technology and science reporters themselves often being quite unqualified.
"Because German energy laws stipulate that “green” power must always have priority on the grid, control centers cannot take wind farms off the grid when too much electricity is being generated. System operators also try to avoid shutting down their coal, gas and nuclear facilities because they rely on these power plants to produce a consistent level of baseload power at all times. "
"Renewable electricity has priority on the German grid and therefore offsets conventional "
And many other places, its easy to verify if you even try. The fact is, you cannot find a single source that back up your contention, and the reason you can't is because you just made it up. If not, show me a single source. Just one. I can guarantee you do not have it.
Slashdot Mirror
The only saving grace for this unit is the open nature that ChromeCast really doesn't have yet.
True. It would be nice to be able to have VLC type playback capabilities.
Yeah, I like it too. I was skeptical, but it serves a nice niche if you like certain web content, and easy to move between TVs. Just wish it had some level of IR control in addition to wifi.
Not only a bullshitter, but clear case of willfull ignorance. Cite your sources or admit it.
You have already proven you ignore facts and obvious data, so what good is it to have a discussion until you admit it. You didn't like the variability in the total wind generation chart for Germany, so you fabricated the contention that in Germany wind is turned on and off for peaking, and conventional sources are not used for peaking. You made it up, and you won't admit it.
I have shown you the actual data from Germany. The charts clearly show there is no correlation between wind output and peaking. In fact, there are multiple points on the charts that show high wind output during low energy usage, and low wind output during high energy usage. The graphs also show how conventional power correlates with peaking, clearly with zero ambiguity. But you ignore it and still stick with your fabricated contentions.
I have shown you the actual law that required use of all available wind power, all the time. You then said it might not be actual law! A clear display of willful ignorance.
AND NOW YOU ARE IN A CORNER AND MAKING UP NEW SHIT THAT YOU CAN'T BACK UP! You contend that "Wind has a lot of down time for maintenance". But ignore the fact that even if it were true, it would not be noticeable on the charts because you already took pains to point out how small each wind generator is. So now you contradict your own bullshit with even more bullshit, none of which you can cite a source for. I will be sure to remind you in the future that you contend wind needs a lot of down time for maintenance.
You are a bullshitter who makes stuff up. Cite your sources or admit it.
One can't have a productive conversation with a proven bullshitter. You are a bullshitter who makes stuff up. Cite your sources or admit it.
You have already proven you ignore facts and obvious data, so what good is it to have a discussion until you admit it. You didn't like the variability in the total wind generation chart for Germany, so you fabricated the contention that in Germany wind is turned on and off for peaking, and conventional sources are not used for peaking. You made it up, and you won't admit it.
I have shown you the actual data from Germany. The charts clearly show there is no correlation between wind output and peaking. In fact, there are multiple points on the charts that show high wind output during low energy usage, and low wind output during high energy usage. The graphs also show how conventional power correlates with peaking, clearly with zero ambiguity. But you ignore it and still stick with your fabricated contentions.
I have shown you the actual law that required use of all available wind power, all the time. You then said it might not be actual law! A clear display of willful ignorance.
AND NOW YOU ARE IN A CORNER AND MAKING UP NEW SHIT THAT YOU CAN'T BACK UP! You contend that "Wind has a lot of down time for maintenance". But ignore the fact that even if it were true, it would not be noticeable on the charts because you already took pains to point out how small each wind generator is. So now you contradict your own bullshit with even more bullshit, none of which you can cite a source for. I will be sure to remind you in the future that you contend wind needs a lot of down time for maintenance.
You are a bullshitter who makes stuff up. Cite your sources or admit it.
Why can't you be honest and admit you are a bullshitter? You are a bullshitter who makes stuff up. Cite your sources or admit it.
You have already proven you ignore facts and obvious data, so what good is it to have a discussion until you admit it. You didn't like the variability in the total wind generation chart for Germany, so you fabricated the contention that in Germany wind is turned on and off for peaking, and conventional sources are not used for peaking. You made it up, and you won't admit it.
I have shown you the actual data from Germany. The charts clearly show there is no correlation between wind output and peaking. In fact, there are multiple points on the charts that show high wind output during low energy usage, and low wind output during high energy usage. The graphs also show how conventional power correlates with peaking, clearly with zero ambiguity. But you ignore it and still stick with your fabricated contentions.
I have shown you the actual law that required use of all available wind power, all the time. You then said it might not be actual law! A clear display of willful ignorance.
AND NOW YOU ARE IN A CORNER AND MAKING UP NEW SHIT THAT YOU CAN'T BACK UP! You contend that "Wind has a lot of down time for maintenance". But ignore the fact that even if it were true, it would not be noticeable on the charts because you already took pains to point out how small each wind generator is. So now you contradict your own bullshit with even more bullshit, none of which you can cite a source for. I will be sure to remind you in the future that you contend wind needs a lot of down time for maintenance.
You are a bullshitter who makes stuff up. Cite your sources or admit it.
Do you really like being a proven bullshitter? Its your own fault. You are a bullshitter who makes stuff up. Cite your sources or admit it.
You have already proven you ignore facts and obvious data, so what good is it to have a discussion until you admit it. You didn't like the variability in the total wind generation chart for Germany, so you fabricated the contention that in Germany wind is turned on and off for peaking, and conventional sources are not used for peaking. You made it up, and you won't admit it.
I have shown you the actual data from Germany. The charts clearly show there is no correlation between wind output and peaking. In fact, there are multiple points on the charts that show high wind output during low energy usage, and low wind output during high energy usage. The graphs also show how conventional power correlates with peaking, clearly with zero ambiguity. But you ignore it and still stick with your fabricated contentions.
I have shown you the actual law that required use of all available wind power, all the time. You then said it might not be actual law! A clear display of willful ignorance.
AND NOW YOU ARE IN A CORNER AND MAKING UP NEW SHIT THAT YOU CAN'T BACK UP! You contend that "Wind has a lot of down time for maintenance". But ignore the fact that even if it were true, it would not be noticeable on the charts because you already took pains to point out how small each wind generator is. So now you contradict your own bullshit with even more bullshit, none of which you can cite a source for. I will be sure to remind you in the future that you contend wind needs a lot of down time for maintenance.
You are a bullshitter who makes stuff up. Cite your sources or admit it.
I can't have a reasonable converstion with a bullshitter? You are a bullshitter who makes stuff up. Cite your sources or admit it.
You have already proven you ignore facts and obvious data, so what good is it to have a discussion until you admit it. You didn't like the variability in the total wind generation chart for Germany, so you fabricated the contention that in Germany wind is turned on and off for peaking, and conventional sources are not used for peaking. You made it up, and you won't admit it.
I have shown you the actual data from Germany. The charts clearly show there is no correlation between wind output and peaking. In fact, there are multiple points on the charts that show high wind output during low energy usage, and low wind output during high energy usage. The graphs also show how conventional power correlates with peaking, clearly with zero ambiguity. But you ignore it and still stick with your fabricated contentions.
I have shown you the actual law that required use of all available wind power, all the time. You then said it might not be actual law! A clear display of willful ignorance.
AND NOW YOU ARE IN A CORNER AND MAKING UP NEW SHIT THAT YOU CAN'T BACK UP! You contend that "Wind has a lot of down time for maintenance". But ignore the fact that even if it were true, it would not be noticeable on the charts because you already took pains to point out how small each wind generator is. So now you contradict your own bullshit with even more bullshit, none of which you can cite a source for. I will be sure to remind you in the future that you contend wind needs a lot of down time for maintenance.
You are a bullshitter who makes stuff up. Cite your sources or admit it.
Why should I converse with a bullshitter? You are a bullshitter who makes stuff up. Cite your sources or admit it.
You have already proven you ignore facts and obvious data, so what good is it to have a discussion until you admit it. You didn't like the variability in the total wind generation chart for Germany, so you fabricated the contention that in Germany wind is turned on and off for peaking, and conventional sources are not used for peaking. You made it up, and you won't admit it.
I have shown you the actual data from Germany. The charts clearly show there is no correlation between wind output and peaking. In fact, there are multiple points on the charts that show high wind output during low energy usage, and low wind output during high energy usage. The graphs also show how conventional power correlates with peaking, clearly with zero ambiguity. But you ignore it and still stick with your fabricated contentions.
I have shown you the actual law that required use of all available wind power, all the time. You then said it might not be actual law! A clear display of willful ignorance.
AND NOW YOU ARE IN A CORNER AND MAKING UP NEW SHIT THAT YOU CAN'T BACK UP! You contend that "Wind has a lot of down time for maintenance". But ignore the fact that even if it were true, it would not be noticeable on the charts because you already took pains to point out how small each wind generator is. So now you contradict your own bullshit with even more bullshit, none of which you can cite a source for. I will be sure to remind you in the future that you contend wind needs a lot of down time for maintenance.
You are a bullshitter who makes stuff up. Cite your sources or admit it.
Anyone reading this thread can clearly tell you are a bullshitter who makes stuff up. Cite your sources or admit it.
You have already proven you ignore facts and obvious data, so what good is it to have a discussion until you admit it. You didn't like the variability in the total wind generation chart for Germany, so you fabricated the contention that in Germany wind is turned on and off for peaking, and conventional sources are not used for peaking. You made it up, and you won't admit it.
I have shown you the actual data from Germany. The charts clearly show there is no correlation between wind output and peaking. In fact, there are multiple points on the charts that show high wind output during low energy usage, and low wind output during high energy usage. The graphs also show how conventional power correlates with peaking, clearly with zero ambiguity. But you ignore it and still stick with your fabricated contentions.
I have shown you the actual law that required use of all available wind power, all the time. You then said it might not be actual law! A clear display of willful ignorance.
AND NOW YOU ARE IN A CORNER AND MAKING UP NEW SHIT THAT YOU CAN'T BACK UP! You contend that "Wind has a lot of down time for maintenance". But ignore the fact that even if it were true, it would not be noticeable on the charts because you already took pains to point out how small each wind generator is. So now you contradict your own bullshit with even more bullshit, none of which you can cite a source for. I will be sure to remind you in the future that you contend wind needs a lot of down time for maintenance.
You are a bullshitter who makes stuff up. Cite your sources or admit it.
You have already proven you ignore facts and obvious data, so what good is it to have a discussion until you admit it. You didn't like the variability in the total wind generation chart for Germany, so you fabricated the contention that in Germany wind is turned on and off for peaking, and conventional sources are not used for peaking. You made it up, and you won't admit it.
I have shown you the actual data from Germany. The charts clearly show there is no correlation between wind output and peaking. In fact, there are multiple points on the charts that show high wind output during low energy usage, and low wind output during high energy usage. The graphs also show how conventional power correlates with peaking, clearly with zero ambiguity. But you ignore it and still stick with your fabricated contentions.
I have shown you the actual law that required use of all available wind power, all the time. You then said it might not be actual law! A clear display of willful ignorance.
AND NOW YOU ARE IN A CORNER AND MAKING UP NEW SHIT THAT YOU CAN'T BACK UP! You contend that "Wind has a lot of down time for maintenance". But ignore the fact that even if it were true, it would not be noticeable on the charts because you already took pains to point out how small each wind generator is. So now you contradict your own bullshit with even more bullshit, none of which you can cite a source for. I will be sure to remind you in the future that you contend wind needs a lot of down time for maintenance.
You are a bullshitter who makes stuff up. Cite your sources or admit it.
dbIII, you are a bullshitter who makes stuff up. Cite your sources or admit it.
You have already proven you ignore facts and obvious data, so what good is it to have a discussion until you admit it. You didn't like the variability in the total wind generation chart for Germany, so you fabricated the contention that in Germany wind is turned on and off for peaking, and conventional sources are not used for peaking. You made it up, and you won't admit it.
I have shown you the actual data from Germany. The charts clearly show there is no correlation between wind output and peaking. In fact, there are multiple points on the charts that show high wind output during low energy usage, and low wind output during high energy usage. The graphs also show how conventional power correlates with peaking, clearly with zero ambiguity. But you ignore it and still stick with your fabricated contentions.
I have shown you the actual law that required use of all available wind power, all the time. You then said it might not be actual law! A clear display of willful ignorance.
AND NOW YOU ARE IN A CORNER AND MAKING UP NEW SHIT THAT YOU CAN'T BACK UP! You contend that "Wind has a lot of down time for maintenance". But ignore the fact that even if it were true, it would not be noticeable on the charts because you already took pains to point out how small each wind generator is. So now you contradict your own bullshit with even more bullshit, none of which you can cite a source for. I will be sure to remind you in the future that you contend wind needs a lot of down time for maintenance.
You are a bullshitter who makes stuff up. Cite your sources or admit it.
dbIII, you are a bullshitter who makes stuff up. Cite your sources or admit it.
You have already proven you ignore facts and obvious data, so what good is it to have a discussion until you admit you fabricated the contention that in Germany wind is turned on and off for peaking. You made it up, and you won't admit it.
I have shown you the actual data from Germany. The charts that clearly show no correlation between wind output and peaking. In fact, there are multiple points on the chart that have high wind output during low energy usage, and low wind output during high energy usage. The graphs also showed how convetional power correlates with peaking, clearly with zero ambiguity. But you ingore it and still stick with your fabricated contentions.
I have show you the actual law that required use of all available wind power, all the time. You then said it might not be actual law! A clear display of willful ignorance.
AND NOW YOU ARE IN A CORNER AND MAKING UP NEW SHIT THAT YOU CAN'T BACK UP! You contend that "Wind has a lot of down time for maintenance". But ignore the fact that even if it were true, it would not be noticeable on the charts becuase you already took pains to point out how small each wind generator is. So now you contradict your own bullshit with even more bullshit, none of which you can cite a source for. I will be sure to remind you in the future that you contend wind needs a lot of down time for maintenance.
You are a bullshitter who makes stuff up. Cite your sources or admit it.
Are you really now saying that the energy act is not law? You can simply look it up. You are IGNORANT, and intentionally so. The law requires the use of ALL AVAILABLE WIND AND SOLAR, ALL THE TIME. JUST FUCKING READ IT AND ADMIT YOU FABRICATED THE IDEA THAT WIND IS TURNED ON AND OFF FOR PEAKING! You made it up, and you wont' admit it. Why won't you admit it? I can guess.
http://www.bmub.bund.de/filead...
http://www.bakermckenzie.com/f...
Grid operators must, immediately and as a priority, purchase, transmit and distribute the entire available quantity of electricity from a renewable energy installation (Section 8 EEG).
Germany has enough wind turbines built that the total generation charts show a good representation of the wind generation profile across the country. But, you have already proven you ignore facts and obvious data, so what good is it to have this discussion until you admit you fabricated the contention that wind is turned on and off for peaking. You made it up, and you won't admit it.
You are a bullshitter who makes stuff up. Cite your source or admit it.
I would argue its a lot easier to dismiss his points based on that, rather then to put some thought into them.
Exactly. The guy may be wrong, partially wrong, or right, but to simply dismiss the points of someone with his experience is not exactly a wise thing to do.
Margins and profit margins are two different things, don't get them confused. I think the point is that the high end market for Tesla may have limited upside, and therefore they will need to move significantly more to the lower end to have long term sustainable growth. Time will tell, but its not wise to completely ignore a person who has significant business insight and experience, there is usually some underlying basis.
That would not be a good question. It needs to be on fundamentals and not purposed toward hot button topics. Simple stuff about chemicals, physics, engineering principals, etc.
So, you don't think the other news service add a layer of ideology, lies, or distortions?
That doesn't surprise me. MSNBC is 100% politically driven, and CNN is basically the "Copy News Network". Financial news sites on the web generally do the best job.
It would be interesting to have a 'science challenge' for all the major news outlet science and technology reporters. They would all be required to answer a series of basic scientific questions, or explain some phenomena. They could even team up. Done properly, I feel it would expose great ignorance.
Scientist is just a label that any one can give to themselves. There is nothing preventing any human from calling themselves a scientist.
Which is why you should only trust scientists that are from think tanks!
There is a lot of poor science reported on Fox news. And there is just as much reported on every other network and major media outlet. If you don't recognize that, you may be part of the problem.
The biggest problem is that anyone can call themselves a scientist. There really is not definition of what it takes to be qualified as a scientist. One who practices science regardless of comptence?
The press is much to blame, never checking qualifications or accomplishments when reporting the work of so called 'scientists". Due to that, so much bullshit is promulgated that never comes to fruition, people naturally become skeptical. Promises of fuel cell being ready for mass adoption, promises of medical cures on the way, etc.
The media should also distinguish between engineers and scientists, but the fact they never do is a great indicator that they don't have a clue. That falls back on the technology and science reporters themselves often being quite unqualified.
The only fool in this game is you, who makes contentions with no basis other than your own perception of how you would like things to be.
Actually, it is very true and even required by law. (Renewable Energy Sources Act – EEG)
http://instituteforenergyresea...
"Because German energy laws stipulate that “green” power must always have priority on the grid, control centers cannot take wind farms off the grid when too much electricity is being generated. System operators also try to avoid shutting down their coal, gas and nuclear facilities because they rely on these power plants to produce a consistent level of baseload power at all times. "
And here; http://thinkprogress.org/clima...
"Renewable electricity has priority on the German grid and therefore offsets conventional "
And many other places, its easy to verify if you even try. The fact is, you cannot find a single source that back up your contention, and the reason you can't is because you just made it up. If not, show me a single source. Just one. I can guarantee you do not have it.