Solar and Wind are not available always when needed, thus they aren't as reliable. Its not that hard a concept to figure out, nor is the importance of reliability a difficult concept to understand.
That you go to such great lengths to rationalize away the importance of reliability is very telling. Nobody is buying your BS. Germany's exports are irrelevant.. Germany depends on importing power intermittently from France to maintain their stability and exports. This is happening all the time.
Those countries don't have the industrialization of France, they also import a lot of their power while France exports.
They're definitely industrialized, just like all of Europe's countries. And all of them, France included, both import AND export a lot of power. We have a lot of electricity trading going on. Even better, these countries have 27%-55% higher GDP generated per unit of CO2 emitted, so their efficiency does not come at the cost of impoverished economy. Clearly the story is more complicated than "more nukes = everything solved".
I never said France was the lowest of all countries.
France has by far the lowest per KWh CO2 emissions due to high percentage of nuclear. They also have the lowest per capita CO2 emissions.
Yeah, it's like words don't mean anything anymore these days, isn't it?
The post was in response to discussion of US, Germany, and France. You just ignored the previous paragraph, on purpose I assume. You take shit out of context and twist it.
Do you even have CO2 emissions per KWH for those countries? If so please link or state them because I don't see them. I think you are making statements you cannot necessarily defend. This makes me question your statements.
The key is 'take steps to try to win'. WTF does that even mean? Cheating falls under that description.
Let's try "Take steps that comply with the agreed-upon rules of the game to try to win." In Blackjack, for example, these are some of the rules:
A busting dealer beats a busting player, providing the house advantage. Various player advantages (ability to stand below 17, double down, split pairs, bonus for 2-card 21) partly compensate for this.
The player can see his own cards, one of the dealer's cards, and all cards of previous hands since the last shuffle.
Memorizing basic strategy, or the best local play based on a player's cards and the dealer's visible card, just about compensates for the rest of the house advantage. Modifying the strategy based on observed favorable and unfavorable cards since the last shuffle may put the player over the edge. Why should that be cheating? And if it is, why don't the casinos tell their guests?
I didn't say it was cheating. I didn't see that specified in the article or the summary. I was just referring to a stupidly generalized statement. Had they talked specifics as you did, it would have been much better.
France has by far the lowest per KWh CO2 emissions due to high percentage of nuclear. They also have the lowest per capita CO2 emissions.
Neither of those is really true. First, even just in Europe, Sweden, Norway, Switzerland fare comparably or better with respect to per KWh CO2 emissions. Second, even more importantly, there's no shortage of countries with lower per-capita CO2 emissions than France.
Those countries don't have the industrialization of France, they also import a lot of their power while France exports. I never said France was the lowest of all countries. But it is of comparable ones. And France's electric costs and prices are among the lowest.
Germany's electric prices have gone up significantly since they started adding solar and wind, and there is no debate about the cause. They are even trying to figure out how to keep going forward knowing costs will continue to increase.
Your rationalizations completely ignore the infrastructure and curtailment costs of wind and solar.
The key is 'take steps to try to win'. WTF does that even mean? Cheating falls under that description. Hacking slot machines fall under that description.
Its pretty simple, countries that have invested heavily in wind have high electric costs. Germany is the most shining example. And those countries have not made significant CO2 emissions reductions. Meanwhile, countries with higher percentage of nuclear have lower electric costs and prices, and lower CO2 emissions per kwh.
You can cite all the estimates you want, which are often best case wind and solar costs versus FOAK nuclear, but the real world has already showed us the answer.
Auctions don't reflect cost, and are skewed by subsidy. Nuclear can demand a higher price because of its relaibility. Solar and wind only exist on the grid today due to the capability of conventional generation. They cannot stand alone.
Not in the electrical sector from adding wind and solar. They've seen improvements outside of generation due to efficiency. But their emissions per kwh generated have basically been flat for the last 8-10 years.
Don't confuse CO2 emissions reduction due to efficiency improvements with per KWH electrical generation emissions. And the topic is improvements due to solar and wind, which started early 2000's. Germany has not seen an improvement in CO2 emissions per kwh from adding solar and wind.
Most C02 cuts per capita in both countries were due to efficiency improvements, and not all is tied to electrical generation. The topic here is improvements in electrical generation emissions. Germany's per KWH generated CO2 emissions have not improved since they started adding solar and wind. In US, per KWh improvement have been mostly due to replacing coal generation with natural gas.
France has by far the lowest per KWh CO2 emissions due to high percentage of nuclear. They also have the lowest per capita CO2 emissions.
Hae?
What nonsense do you talk now again?
Germanies CO2 emmisions have improved greatly in comparison to the US.
And energy/electricity prices have not skyrocked. They are higher per kwh than in the US, but that is compensated by the low consumption. An average German household pays less for electricity than an American.
As always: you have no c!ue, to sad.
Germany's emissions have not improved at all. You are showing complete ignorance. Once again, its a pattern with you. You just say stuff you want to be true even though it isn't.
Nuclear has produced, and continues to produce more energy than wind or solar.
Not in Germany.
Globally, by a long shot. Its not even close. You can always draw a small circle. Unfortunately for Germany, their CO2 emissions haven't improved and their electricity costs have skyrocketed, as reflected in their pricing, in their quest to add solar and wind.
History is very relevant. I see you want to ignore it. We know how that ends up.
You can't produce nuclear plants fast enough. Nuclear has been around more than half century, and it has failed to outcompete fossil fuels. The new designs are still just finding better ways to boil water. Even if they improve costs by an order of magnitude, solar and wind are still going to beat them.
Solar and wind are still enjoying exponential cost decreases, and at least solar is likely to continue on that path for a long time.
Nuclear has produced, and continues to produce more energy than wind or solar. In fact, no other scalable non CO2 emitting source has produced anything close to the production that nuclear has. Countries with higher percentage nuclear power have the lowest energy prices. Your statements ring hollow.
If the math isn't difficult, please tell me what annual profits will be, or even just 3rd or 4th quarter profits? In dollars or percentage will be fine.
Tesla has already claimed they will have two profitable quarters, that expectation priced into the stock already. If they miss on targets, stock will go down. If profitability does not appear strong enough and/or sustainable stock price will go down. Furthermore, if the stock market in general takes a dive, Tesla stock will along with it.
Musk has missed targets in the past. If you don't see how that risk has increased with the lowering of stock price, you are blind
Anybody long does not want it to drop below $300 anytime soon, it would be a bad sign that they would not likely hit the Feb convertible strike price of $360 and need to part with $990M in cash.
It appears obvious now that no funding was ever secured. A nice excuse by Musk, but what else is he gonna say.
You have to love the quote at the end of the Guardian article, though it really should have been put at the beginning:
But David Spiegelhalter, Winton professor for the public understanding of risk at the University of Cambridge, said the data showed only a very low level of harm in moderate drinkers and suggested UK guidelines were very low risk.
“Given the pleasure presumably associated with moderate drinking, claiming there is no ‘safe’ level does not seem an argument for abstention,” he said. “There is no safe level of driving, but government do not recommend that people avoid driving. Come to think of it, there is no safe level of living, but nobody would recommend abstention.”
Also, a meta-data study that once again doesn't indicate how it normalized all the input data, is somewhat useless for drawing conclusions.
People that drink more may also on average have less healthier habits. Even where individual studies have different methods to account for different correlations, meta studies rarely adequately account for these differences.
What does any of this have to do with "net neutrality" remains a mystery...
You know, there is data involved! Its either NN or Russians. We can't explain it, it just is. And msmash put it in the summary, so it must be relevant. With all that throttling, we're lucky the whole country didn't burn down.
Why? I rarely read a book twice. Reference books are handy to own.
Then you're reading the wrong books.
There are few books that I finish and find aren't worth reading twice. Books that aren't worth re-reading aren't worth finishing. The last book I finished that wasn't worth reading twice wasn't even worth finishing but it was mandatory reading in high school (that was a long time ago, before e-books were a thing).
Because you read some books twice and I rarely do, I am reading the wrong books?
Brilliant logic! Maybe you just don't pay attention enought the first read.
Reading books is much more important than owning them. EBooks eliminates waste.
Owning DVDs doesn't strike me as an important thing in life.
Still, despite these two things, I own a crapload of stuff.
Did you know that there has been a trend to reduce or even eliminate the savings that you, as a consumer, could realize by buying the electronic book as opposed to the physical one, despite how much more waste making and selling physical books creates?
When I asked a customer service rep at a company that shall remain namelesz, why in some cases the phsycial book is CHEAPER, NEW than the ebook when this retailer sells both, the response I got was that people are still buying physical books. (Inasmuch as that's not really an explanation why something that by rights SHOULD be cheaper ISN'T,) I replied with something like, "but... don't you have to pay the same royalties on both, based on intellectual property, but NOT have to pay to print the book itself, nor pay for the physical storage space of each in warehouses, on trucks, and ultimately on bookshelves in actual, brick-and-mortar stores whenever you start opening those for books, for the electronic books you DO sell? Why not make it easer to buy THOSE?"
The response I got basically was that they make more money pricing them this way, so this is the way they price them. (Sigh.)
Did you know there is this thing called 'the market', in which sellers determine how much people are willing to pay for something, and use that to determine price?
Slashdot Mirror
Solar and Wind are not available always when needed, thus they aren't as reliable. Its not that hard a concept to figure out, nor is the importance of reliability a difficult concept to understand.
That you go to such great lengths to rationalize away the importance of reliability is very telling. Nobody is buying your BS. Germany's exports are irrelevant.. Germany depends on importing power intermittently from France to maintain their stability and exports. This is happening all the time.
https://www.energy-charts.de/p...
Those countries don't have the industrialization of France, they also import a lot of their power while France exports.
They're definitely industrialized, just like all of Europe's countries. And all of them, France included, both import AND export a lot of power. We have a lot of electricity trading going on. Even better, these countries have 27%-55% higher GDP generated per unit of CO2 emitted, so their efficiency does not come at the cost of impoverished economy. Clearly the story is more complicated than "more nukes = everything solved".
I never said France was the lowest of all countries.
France has by far the lowest per KWh CO2 emissions due to high percentage of nuclear. They also have the lowest per capita CO2 emissions.
Yeah, it's like words don't mean anything anymore these days, isn't it?
The post was in response to discussion of US, Germany, and France. You just ignored the previous paragraph, on purpose I assume. You take shit out of context and twist it.
Once again, you just say stuff.
Do you even have CO2 emissions per KWH for those countries? If so please link or state them because I don't see them. I think you are making statements you cannot necessarily defend. This makes me question your statements.
https://www.eea.europa.eu/data...
The key is 'take steps to try to win'. WTF does that even mean? Cheating falls under that description.
Let's try "Take steps that comply with the agreed-upon rules of the game to try to win." In Blackjack, for example, these are some of the rules:
Memorizing basic strategy, or the best local play based on a player's cards and the dealer's visible card, just about compensates for the rest of the house advantage. Modifying the strategy based on observed favorable and unfavorable cards since the last shuffle may put the player over the edge. Why should that be cheating? And if it is, why don't the casinos tell their guests?
I didn't say it was cheating. I didn't see that specified in the article or the summary. I was just referring to a stupidly generalized statement. Had they talked specifics as you did, it would have been much better.
France has by far the lowest per KWh CO2 emissions due to high percentage of nuclear. They also have the lowest per capita CO2 emissions.
Neither of those is really true. First, even just in Europe, Sweden, Norway, Switzerland fare comparably or better with respect to per KWh CO2 emissions. Second, even more importantly, there's no shortage of countries with lower per-capita CO2 emissions than France.
Those countries don't have the industrialization of France, they also import a lot of their power while France exports. I never said France was the lowest of all countries. But it is of comparable ones. And France's electric costs and prices are among the lowest.
Germany's electric prices have gone up significantly since they started adding solar and wind, and there is no debate about the cause. They are even trying to figure out how to keep going forward knowing costs will continue to increase.
Your rationalizations completely ignore the infrastructure and curtailment costs of wind and solar.
Then the caps come back.
That's because too many people are focusing on the wrong problem. The problem is not net neutrality (or lack thereof).
The problem is lack of competition.
I shake my head at the number of idiots who think throttling cell data in this manner is a net neutrality issue.
The key is 'take steps to try to win'. WTF does that even mean? Cheating falls under that description. Hacking slot machines fall under that description.
Its pretty simple, countries that have invested heavily in wind have high electric costs. Germany is the most shining example. And those countries have not made significant CO2 emissions reductions. Meanwhile, countries with higher percentage of nuclear have lower electric costs and prices, and lower CO2 emissions per kwh.
You can cite all the estimates you want, which are often best case wind and solar costs versus FOAK nuclear, but the real world has already showed us the answer.
Auctions don't reflect cost, and are skewed by subsidy. Nuclear can demand a higher price because of its relaibility. Solar and wind only exist on the grid today due to the capability of conventional generation. They cannot stand alone.
https://www.cleanenergywire.or...
Germany hasn't?
Not in the electrical sector from adding wind and solar. They've seen improvements outside of generation due to efficiency. But their emissions per kwh generated have basically been flat for the last 8-10 years.
Don't confuse CO2 emissions reduction due to efficiency improvements with per KWH electrical generation emissions. And the topic is improvements due to solar and wind, which started early 2000's. Germany has not seen an improvement in CO2 emissions per kwh from adding solar and wind.
Germany went from 13.59 in 1970, down to 9.47 in 2016 (and has been flat/growing for the last 7 years). That is a 30% cut. America went from 21.74 in 1970, down to 15.56 in 2016 (and America went down again in 2017). That is a 28% cut. So, no, there really has not been much of a difference.
Most C02 cuts per capita in both countries were due to efficiency improvements, and not all is tied to electrical generation. The topic here is improvements in electrical generation emissions. Germany's per KWH generated CO2 emissions have not improved since they started adding solar and wind. In US, per KWh improvement have been mostly due to replacing coal generation with natural gas.
France has by far the lowest per KWh CO2 emissions due to high percentage of nuclear. They also have the lowest per capita CO2 emissions.
Hae? What nonsense do you talk now again? Germanies CO2 emmisions have improved greatly in comparison to the US. And energy/electricity prices have not skyrocked. They are higher per kwh than in the US, but that is compensated by the low consumption. An average German household pays less for electricity than an American. As always: you have no c!ue, to sad.
Germany's emissions have not improved at all. You are showing complete ignorance. Once again, its a pattern with you. You just say stuff you want to be true even though it isn't.
Nuclear has produced, and continues to produce more energy than wind or solar. Not in Germany.
Globally, by a long shot. Its not even close. You can always draw a small circle. Unfortunately for Germany, their CO2 emissions haven't improved and their electricity costs have skyrocketed, as reflected in their pricing, in their quest to add solar and wind.
History is very relevant. I see you want to ignore it. We know how that ends up.
You can't produce nuclear plants fast enough. Nuclear has been around more than half century, and it has failed to outcompete fossil fuels. The new designs are still just finding better ways to boil water. Even if they improve costs by an order of magnitude, solar and wind are still going to beat them.
Solar and wind are still enjoying exponential cost decreases, and at least solar is likely to continue on that path for a long time.
Nuclear has produced, and continues to produce more energy than wind or solar. In fact, no other scalable non CO2 emitting source has produced anything close to the production that nuclear has. Countries with higher percentage nuclear power have the lowest energy prices. Your statements ring hollow.
If the math isn't difficult, please tell me what annual profits will be, or even just 3rd or 4th quarter profits? In dollars or percentage will be fine.
Tesla has already claimed they will have two profitable quarters, that expectation priced into the stock already. If they miss on targets, stock will go down. If profitability does not appear strong enough and/or sustainable stock price will go down. Furthermore, if the stock market in general takes a dive, Tesla stock will along with it.
Musk has missed targets in the past. If you don't see how that risk has increased with the lowering of stock price, you are blind
Anybody long does not want it to drop below $300 anytime soon, it would be a bad sign that they would not likely hit the Feb convertible strike price of $360 and need to part with $990M in cash.
It appears obvious now that no funding was ever secured. A nice excuse by Musk, but what else is he gonna say.
You have to love the quote at the end of the Guardian article, though it really should have been put at the beginning:
But David Spiegelhalter, Winton professor for the public understanding of risk at the University of Cambridge, said the data showed only a very low level of harm in moderate drinkers and suggested UK guidelines were very low risk.
“Given the pleasure presumably associated with moderate drinking, claiming there is no ‘safe’ level does not seem an argument for abstention,” he said. “There is no safe level of driving, but government do not recommend that people avoid driving. Come to think of it, there is no safe level of living, but nobody would recommend abstention.”
Also, a meta-data study that once again doesn't indicate how it normalized all the input data, is somewhat useless for drawing conclusions.
People that drink more may also on average have less healthier habits. Even where individual studies have different methods to account for different correlations, meta studies rarely adequately account for these differences.
What does any of this have to do with "net neutrality" remains a mystery...
You know, there is data involved! Its either NN or Russians. We can't explain it, it just is. And msmash put it in the summary, so it must be relevant. With all that throttling, we're lucky the whole country didn't burn down.
Better still, reading ebooks you actually own.
Why? I rarely read a book twice. Reference books are handy to own.
Then you're reading the wrong books. There are few books that I finish and find aren't worth reading twice. Books that aren't worth re-reading aren't worth finishing. The last book I finished that wasn't worth reading twice wasn't even worth finishing but it was mandatory reading in high school (that was a long time ago, before e-books were a thing).
Because you read some books twice and I rarely do, I am reading the wrong books?
Brilliant logic! Maybe you just don't pay attention enought the first read.
Reading books is much more important than owning them. EBooks eliminates waste.
Owning DVDs doesn't strike me as an important thing in life.
Still, despite these two things, I own a crapload of stuff.
Did you know that there has been a trend to reduce or even eliminate the savings that you, as a consumer, could realize by buying the electronic book as opposed to the physical one, despite how much more waste making and selling physical books creates?
When I asked a customer service rep at a company that shall remain namelesz, why in some cases the phsycial book is CHEAPER, NEW than the ebook when this retailer sells both, the response I got was that people are still buying physical books. (Inasmuch as that's not really an explanation why something that by rights SHOULD be cheaper ISN'T,) I replied with something like, "but... don't you have to pay the same royalties on both, based on intellectual property, but NOT have to pay to print the book itself, nor pay for the physical storage space of each in warehouses, on trucks, and ultimately on bookshelves in actual, brick-and-mortar stores whenever you start opening those for books, for the electronic books you DO sell? Why not make it easer to buy THOSE?"
The response I got basically was that they make more money pricing them this way, so this is the way they price them. (Sigh.)
Did you know there is this thing called 'the market', in which sellers determine how much people are willing to pay for something, and use that to determine price?
Better still, reading ebooks you actually own.
Why? I rarely read a book twice. Reference books are handy to own.