The levelized cost of nuclear power, cost over plant lifetime. is the most expensive form of electricity on the market. There is no dispute about it, any study will show this..
Didn't you even try to valide your assumption before wrongly stating it as fact? Its not even remotely correct. But I am sure you will rationalize it somehow and keep repeating it.
Unfortunately, not a single author of the study has any experience at all in electrical transmission or distribution, not to mention zero experience or background in grid management. It is simply a math exercise that ignores the many real constraints on the grid.
But those that want to hear this don't care, they'll take this and run with it.
Yes, the study is does not seem to adequately depict reallity, such as the massive transmission buldiout required if such a plan were even feasible. It also glosses over the true meaning of "150%" of total US energy. This would be 150% annual production, not capacity, so given an averge 35% capacity factor of wind, and 20% capacity factor of solar, we would actually require about 450% of us rated capacity. That not only would be extremely cost prohibitive up front, but the amount of curtailment would be absolutely huge and costly as well.
Even the 90% case would have huge curtailments, as curtailments get pretty significant after 30%. Why no talk of the cost of curtailment folks? And if anyone ever sat down and calculated the cost of 12 hour of storage for the entire US demand, they'd quickly realize how unrealistic it is. Remember, with storage you pay for your power twice, once for generating the power, and again for storing it.
Maybe a study where there is at least one guy that actually worked at a utility or power plant or even something close would be a bit more practical.
All I know about the Tesla system is that, on its own, it was not good enough to keep from ramming into the side of a tracker trailer. Thankfully they realized its nowhere near good enough yet and required drivers to keep control.
The video appears to be deceiving. It is almost like it was purposely dimmed before being released.
Not likley dimmed or changed in any way. Cameras don't deal well with large exposure ranges, video cameras even worse than still shooters. Eyeballs do much better.
Well, the "Safety Driver" is, and has to be, nearly decoration. As another poster has frequently said, research shows universal human failure to maintain attention in that kind of situation. It's true there haven't been large group studies, so it's possible that some small fraction of people can maintain attention in that kind of a situation. But do notice that *small*. It's definitely well under 10%, and probably well under 1%.
I actually feel bad for the driver as well as the family of the victim. You can argue the drive wasn't doing his job, but the human factors element set him up for failure.
She wasn't just crossing outside a sidewalk, it looks like she was crossing outside the area lighted by streetlights. She was only illuminated by the cars headlights. Seems like the car should have at least attempted to avoid but if a human had been driving the car, she would be just as dead. No human would have reacted in time.
Camera exposure range is limited,, a human paying attention could have seen her sooner and been able to swerve, maybe not completely avoiding her but maybe not hitting her fatally. There was no car in the oncoming lane so plenty of room to swerve left.
It was a dashcam. The lens is slow, everything looks way darker than it does to your eyes. The driver could have seen her way before the dashcam viewer could.
Agree 100%. I've never seen that dramatic of a falloff of viewable area with the naked eye unless its is heavy fog or rain. Camera exposure range is pushed up due to the brighter areas.
I agree. By the time the jaywalker was visible no one would be able to stop.
She may have been visible to a human much earlier than we can tell from that camera footage. That camera seem to have a relatively narrow exposure range. She was in the the other lane well before camera visible. In the camera picture, the left lane is totally blacked out past the direct field of the headlights. You can see well past that with your eyes.
That the car didn't even appear to slow down (although that is hard to tell as well) is another concern.
One advantage autonomous cars have is that even if they are found not legally at fault they don't go around feeling guilty about the incident like a person would.
"Targeting" and "attacking" the grid and grid systems is not 'hacking' the grid. It is attempted hacking. The articles talk about targeting , not successful hacks. The headline is misleading, as intended I suppose.
You do realize this is not nuclear power plant waste, but rather cold war era waste that was never properly stored to start with? Commercial nuclear fuel waste is much much easier to deal with.
Why should people who can't afford cars go first? Should they go before pedestrians that can afford cars? Is Musk planning on asking each person if they can afford a car or not before letting them go first?
The 'cost disease' starts with very over-optimistic cost estimates that are used by politicians to justify the projects. Then they issue construction contracts that don't hold any one company accountable for the overall cost (largely because no company would sign such a contract because they know the estimates are low). Of course, once the project gets to a certain point where there is no turning back, the bad news seems to start coming.
I'd like to see politicians promise to quit if the such a project goes over budget by more than 15%. But we know that would never happen.
They may both be 'warm enough' in the sense of the beginning of life can span such a range. In the context of the universe, or even the solar system, the temperature range from near hydrothermal vents to the surface of the Med is quite narrow.
It's one thing to take some extremophiles that descended from more cushy conditions on Earth, and get them to grow in a similar environment to the one they evolved to match here. But they had the luxury of evolving from things which first arose in more hospitable situations.
It's another thing to start the life process out from scratch. At the moment, we don't know how likely that is or isn't. One thing the Earth had going for it is really great conditions for a long period of time, and a large scale, so lots of random chances to do whatever-it-is that has to get done. Time and scale both seem likely to help.
For all we know, Earth is a fluke, and life is a statistical rarity, existing on only a few lucky planets in an average galaxy. Or for all we know, it happens almost everywhere conditions work out to support it, but if so, we haven't found any signs of exoplanetary intelligence yet. (Of course we haven't looked very much, either).
I want there to be microbial life found elsewhere in the solar system, but I would not bet in favor of it. I might - barely - bet in favor of past life on a system like Mars which went extinct when conditions there took a turn for the worse.
Almost exactly what I came to say. Life much more likely starts in mild friendly conditions, and if it thrives some of it evolves to take on the extremes.
Businesses aren't going to be sending people overnight in a car. People who travel for business overnight expect hotel rooms. Self driving cars are too slow for business too.
I travel for business and would gladly take that option. I typically choose how I travel for business, I see no reason a company would not allow that choice if economics worked out. However I agree its more compelling for personal travel. A full size autonomous RV would make a neat vacation option. Wake up every morning somewhere new.
Slashdot Mirror
The levelized cost of nuclear power, cost over plant lifetime. is the most expensive form of electricity on the market. There is no dispute about it, any study will show this. .
Didn't you even try to valide your assumption before wrongly stating it as fact? Its not even remotely correct. But I am sure you will rationalize it somehow and keep repeating it.
https://www.lazard.com/perspec...
Unfortunately, not a single author of the study has any experience at all in electrical transmission or distribution, not to mention zero experience or background in grid management. It is simply a math exercise that ignores the many real constraints on the grid.
But those that want to hear this don't care, they'll take this and run with it.
Yes, the study is does not seem to adequately depict reallity, such as the massive transmission buldiout required if such a plan were even feasible. It also glosses over the true meaning of "150%" of total US energy. This would be 150% annual production, not capacity, so given an averge 35% capacity factor of wind, and 20% capacity factor of solar, we would actually require about 450% of us rated capacity. That not only would be extremely cost prohibitive up front, but the amount of curtailment would be absolutely huge and costly as well.
Even the 90% case would have huge curtailments, as curtailments get pretty significant after 30%. Why no talk of the cost of curtailment folks? And if anyone ever sat down and calculated the cost of 12 hour of storage for the entire US demand, they'd quickly realize how unrealistic it is. Remember, with storage you pay for your power twice, once for generating the power, and again for storing it.
Maybe a study where there is at least one guy that actually worked at a utility or power plant or even something close would be a bit more practical.
All I know about the Tesla system is that, on its own, it was not good enough to keep from ramming into the side of a tracker trailer. Thankfully they realized its nowhere near good enough yet and required drivers to keep control.
Check out this video that shows how easy it really is to see on same stretch of road at night;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
The video appears to be deceiving. It is almost like it was purposely dimmed before being released.
Not likley dimmed or changed in any way. Cameras don't deal well with large exposure ranges, video cameras even worse than still shooters. Eyeballs do much better.
Well, the "Safety Driver" is, and has to be, nearly decoration. As another poster has frequently said, research shows universal human failure to maintain attention in that kind of situation. It's true there haven't been large group studies, so it's possible that some small fraction of people can maintain attention in that kind of a situation. But do notice that *small*. It's definitely well under 10%, and probably well under 1%.
I actually feel bad for the driver as well as the family of the victim. You can argue the drive wasn't doing his job, but the human factors element set him up for failure.
She wasn't just crossing outside a sidewalk, it looks like she was crossing outside the area lighted by streetlights. She was only illuminated by the cars headlights. Seems like the car should have at least attempted to avoid but if a human had been driving the car, she would be just as dead. No human would have reacted in time.
Camera exposure range is limited,, a human paying attention could have seen her sooner and been able to swerve, maybe not completely avoiding her but maybe not hitting her fatally. There was no car in the oncoming lane so plenty of room to swerve left.
This is far from clear cut
It was a dashcam. The lens is slow, everything looks way darker than it does to your eyes. The driver could have seen her way before the dashcam viewer could.
Agree 100%. I've never seen that dramatic of a falloff of viewable area with the naked eye unless its is heavy fog or rain. Camera exposure range is pushed up due to the brighter areas.
I agree. By the time the jaywalker was visible no one would be able to stop.
She may have been visible to a human much earlier than we can tell from that camera footage. That camera seem to have a relatively narrow exposure range. She was in the the other lane well before camera visible. In the camera picture, the left lane is totally blacked out past the direct field of the headlights. You can see well past that with your eyes.
That the car didn't even appear to slow down (although that is hard to tell as well) is another concern.
One advantage autonomous cars have is that even if they are found not legally at fault they don't go around feeling guilty about the incident like a person would.
"Targeting" and "attacking" the grid and grid systems is not 'hacking' the grid. It is attempted hacking. The articles talk about targeting , not successful hacks. The headline is misleading, as intended I suppose.
I suppose a clever hacker might have you feel someone else's prosthetic.
You do realize this is not nuclear power plant waste, but rather cold war era waste that was never properly stored to start with? Commercial nuclear fuel waste is much much easier to deal with.
Why should people who can't afford cars go first? Should they go before pedestrians that can afford cars? Is Musk planning on asking each person if they can afford a car or not before letting them go first?
Its amazing how easy it is to spend other people's future money.
The 'cost disease' starts with very over-optimistic cost estimates that are used by politicians to justify the projects. Then they issue construction contracts that don't hold any one company accountable for the overall cost (largely because no company would sign such a contract because they know the estimates are low). Of course, once the project gets to a certain point where there is no turning back, the bad news seems to start coming.
I'd like to see politicians promise to quit if the such a project goes over budget by more than 15%. But we know that would never happen.
They may both be 'warm enough' in the sense of the beginning of life can span such a range. In the context of the universe, or even the solar system, the temperature range from near hydrothermal vents to the surface of the Med is quite narrow.
Does your definition of "friendly" include the presence of free oxygen?
Not necessarily. More a place where the building blocks can come together (warm enough, calm enough) without immediately being torn apart.
The hydrothermal ocean vents with extreme pressure and no light where we call life "extremophiles" are commonly thought to be where life began
Warm waters, even at deep ocean pressures, are conditions that would be considered mild and friendly.
I wonder how much that list is worth.
I hate when people can't distinguish 'cause' from 'enable'.
It's one thing to take some extremophiles that descended from more cushy conditions on Earth, and get them to grow in a similar environment to the one they evolved to match here. But they had the luxury of evolving from things which first arose in more hospitable situations.
It's another thing to start the life process out from scratch. At the moment, we don't know how likely that is or isn't. One thing the Earth had going for it is really great conditions for a long period of time, and a large scale, so lots of random chances to do whatever-it-is that has to get done. Time and scale both seem likely to help.
For all we know, Earth is a fluke, and life is a statistical rarity, existing on only a few lucky planets in an average galaxy. Or for all we know, it happens almost everywhere conditions work out to support it, but if so, we haven't found any signs of exoplanetary intelligence yet. (Of course we haven't looked very much, either).
I want there to be microbial life found elsewhere in the solar system, but I would not bet in favor of it. I might - barely - bet in favor of past life on a system like Mars which went extinct when conditions there took a turn for the worse.
Almost exactly what I came to say. Life much more likely starts in mild friendly conditions, and if it thrives some of it evolves to take on the extremes.
Businesses aren't going to be sending people overnight in a car. People who travel for business overnight expect hotel rooms. Self driving cars are too slow for business too.
I travel for business and would gladly take that option. I typically choose how I travel for business, I see no reason a company would not allow that choice if economics worked out. However I agree its more compelling for personal travel. A full size autonomous RV would make a neat vacation option. Wake up every morning somewhere new.
I forot to mention one of the worst things that will result from having all autonomous cars. Movie chase scenes are gonna suck!
good point