This is likely nothing to worry about... if as hypothesized it is related to the magnetic flip. As the summary states this happens "on average" every 300000 years, and that's way more frequent than the return period of mass extinctions. Of course, this hypothesis could be wrong...
I think the most interesting impact would be on migrating species who in theory use the earth's magnetic polarity for direction.
We could have automated gasoline refueling already if we really wanted and needed to. But we didn't really want or need to. We don't need to do it for EVs, but we may want to. Its simply not that big of a deal to plug a car in.
While it sounds cool to wirelessly charge, in reality it's likely to be far more practical and inexpensive to just use a plug.
Unless it is a ubiquitous standard charger, I doubt many would invest in having it embedded in a concrete floor. It sees a mat that sits on the floor would be more desirable.
Of course, a huge number of people don't have garages or can't get all their cars into their garages, so plugs will still be the default. This embedded charger would be more of a nice accessory.
While there is a cycle involved in CO2 sequestration and release that philosophically can be called carbon neutral, there is not doubt that because of Biomass burning there is more CO2 in the atmosphere at any given moment than their would be if that power were generated by a zero carbon source. The CO2 emitted by biomass is no different than the CO2 emitted by natural gas in how it acts after emission. By cutting down carbon sink plant life and burning it we are both releasing sequestered CO2 and destroying an active carbon sink. Also, there is much CO2 released by the farm machinery involved.
Um, no. According to the article the main driver was Natural Gas and Nuclear. Solar/Wind barely budged. Another mdsolar deceptive article.
About 25% of Q3 power was from renewables. From the source document, about 4.5% was solar, 11% wind, 8% Biomass. Q3 is the best quarter for solar annually, it drops off significantly in the winter, so that annual averages are less than Q3. Wind production tends to be lower than average during Q3.
What is most interesting is that although the percentage increased, total consumption decreases significantly, allowing them to reduce coal burning. Natural Gas increased the most and Renewable's and Nuclear's percentages of the total increased more than their actual production percentages did.
Uber's greatest advantage was out of being the unregulated service in a regulated market. As they grew that became harder and harder.
They seem to want to stick to their roots here as well and avoid regulation, but at some point the same regulations you want to avoid are the ones that can give you a competitive advantage. In this case, they can be an early mover in the licensed self driving vehicle market, which can be a barrier to entry for future competitors as those regulations will most certainly evolve.
But maybe they can find some autonomous car sanctuary city somewhere that doesn't mind putting a few cyclists at risk.
BTW I'm not arguing against solar. I think it makes a lot of sense in many places, particularly the southwest. I just want folks to keep the facts straight.
Fig 8 jis an average of a subset of the sample set, as far as I can tell, and its purpose is to indicate what is possible. Its kind of strange because all they need to do is cite the actual averages from the entire sample set. But like I said it appears that sample set is limited to plants in the highest irradiance areas, not representative of the larger area.
And yes I know they naturally build some plants in the optimal areas, but we are talking averages across the wider region and in terms of the article the entire US. As I said, the number of areas where >7 irradiance is available is very small when looking on a regional, much less an national, basis.
No, the real racists are the ones who pretend racism doesn't exist, or that racism is exclusively the "crazy uncle saying bad things".
Real racism is often hidden inside structural or institutional systems, out of sight yet present.
the crazy uncle is only the most visible form, and most easily combatted.
structural racism is far more insidious.
and its the kind you're engaging in right now.
So, I see you have accused me of engaging in racism, you can't specifically point out how so you genericize an argument. I never said 'all' or 'only', but you reacted as if I did. Why was that? Stoking the fires? And did you notice I was speaking of individuals, not societies?
Well, I missed that so my mistake. Thanks for pointing that out. The rest of the article indicates it being handles differently, where the seller must pay. Its confusing, but clearly the intent is to make it optional to not use.
No way would it ever pass with the certified expert requirement.
Also, if you look at that paper, Fig 7 shows the only ones up around 30% are in irradiances of >7. If you looks at non-tracking in areas with irradiance less than 7, you'll see it maxes out at 25%. As you can see from an irradiance map, zones above 7 are pretty scarce.
What is the percentage for new under construction? That marketing link just says they continue to sell more, but does not talk about percentages. I still believe the percentage is reducing significantly based on new projects I've reviewed, but I can't prove it for all at the moment. I have not yet seen anything showing tracking use is actually growing in percentage or even maintaining 30%. I'll have to do some more looking.
> And nobody is installing tracking PV, for the cost is too high and it requires too much maintenance,
As of 2014, 61% of new utility-scale solar plants were tracking systems (https://emp.lbl.gov/sites/all/files/lbnl-1006037_slides.pdf) (see page 23). The 10% higher cost for the tracking hardware is more than offset by the extra output you get from always facing the Sun.
To my knowledge, the use of tracking has significantly dropped in newer installation. I don't recall any recent projects that included it, but I don't have a list of all installations so maybe that is incorrect. If you include residential PV, tracking is even a smaller percent of the total. Why spend 10% more for 5% increase in CF when you can get 10% increase in total capacity for that same investment? Plus take on the added maintenance costs and reduced generation when a tilt motor fails. In some places there may be space constraints, but in general due to feed in tariffs there is no benefit in having a longer production window, only the total KWH generated matters.
I don't object to anything at all. But it was clear my point regarding CF was related to fixed panels, so if you want to include tracking the numbers are certainly higher. Furthermore, one could question why they would not include inverter drop as for any other source CF is calculated on what is delivered to the grid.
Solar capacity factors of 25% are relatively easy in the sun belt and can go as high as 36% with tracking and a high panel-to-inverter ratio
No, 25% is top end for the sunny southwest, certainly above average for fixed panels in that region. US average is a lot lower. And nobody is installing tracking PV, for the cost is too high and it requires too much maintenance, it works out better to just pay for more fixed panels.
Pure speculation on your part. Not sure what it is based on. I'm not defending this proposal, too many execution challenges to succeed IMO, but it may surprise you to know how many parents would welcome an easy and effective method to limit porn accessibility on devices their kids use. The solutions out there tend to suck, unfortunately this one probably would too. I see this as nothing but an oversimplified attempt in response to something many parents want.
Actually, according to the linked article, the man proposing the legislation thinks that you can install this filtering software in a way that would require someone to go to a state certified expert to have it removed because the law would charge you $20 to have the software removed. Or in other words, he wants every computing device sold in SC to have a rootkit installed on it.
No, there is nothing in the proposed idea that says anything of that sort. Did you make that up? If not please link to the proposition and where this is stated. The only thing required is either the device have the bloatware installed or the seller pay the $20 "tax"
Your response drifts in to many irrrellevencies, but as far as censorship please explain what is being censored here? Did you read the source article (hint..not the one above)? User controlled filters on removable bloatware is not censorship, not even remotely . The fact that some people may need help using software doesn't change that. Furthermore there are MANY parents who would live to have such filters on their family computers. I'm not sating this is a good plan, but it is certainly not censorship.
I went back to the source article. It basically is a suggestion to require that certain filtering software be installed by manufacturers or pay $20 per box which would go to fight anti-human trafficking. The software is not required to be used or even turned on by default, and evidently can be removed.
Slashdot Mirror
I heard the Chinese will also build a ginkgo-factory that will revolutionize production.
This is likely nothing to worry about... if as hypothesized it is related to the magnetic flip. As the summary states this happens "on average" every 300000 years, and that's way more frequent than the return period of mass extinctions. Of course, this hypothesis could be wrong...
I think the most interesting impact would be on migrating species who in theory use the earth's magnetic polarity for direction.
We could have automated gasoline refueling already if we really wanted and needed to. But we didn't really want or need to. We don't need to do it for EVs, but we may want to. Its simply not that big of a deal to plug a car in.
While it sounds cool to wirelessly charge, in reality it's likely to be far more practical and inexpensive to just use a plug.
Unless it is a ubiquitous standard charger, I doubt many would invest in having it embedded in a concrete floor. It sees a mat that sits on the floor would be more desirable.
Of course, a huge number of people don't have garages or can't get all their cars into their garages, so plugs will still be the default. This embedded charger would be more of a nice accessory.
While there is a cycle involved in CO2 sequestration and release that philosophically can be called carbon neutral, there is not doubt that because of Biomass burning there is more CO2 in the atmosphere at any given moment than their would be if that power were generated by a zero carbon source. The CO2 emitted by biomass is no different than the CO2 emitted by natural gas in how it acts after emission. By cutting down carbon sink plant life and burning it we are both releasing sequestered CO2 and destroying an active carbon sink. Also, there is much CO2 released by the farm machinery involved.
The entire population of the UK is less than two Tokyos.
You fail at basic math:
UK population: 65.3 million
Tokyo population: 13.62 million
65.3 / 13.6 ~ 4.8.
FWIW, the population of the greater metropolitan Tokyo area is more like 38 million.
Um, no. According to the article the main driver was Natural Gas and Nuclear. Solar/Wind barely budged. Another mdsolar deceptive article.
About 25% of Q3 power was from renewables. From the source document, about 4.5% was solar, 11% wind, 8% Biomass. Q3 is the best quarter for solar annually, it drops off significantly in the winter, so that annual averages are less than Q3. Wind production tends to be lower than average during Q3.
What is most interesting is that although the percentage increased, total consumption decreases significantly, allowing them to reduce coal burning. Natural Gas increased the most and Renewable's and Nuclear's percentages of the total increased more than their actual production percentages did.
https://t.co/WcF82BuKIu
My thoughts as well. Of course he's talking to their intelligence people, that's why he's allowed to stay.
They forgot to use the magic words.."it just like autopilot on a plane".
Uber's greatest advantage was out of being the unregulated service in a regulated market. As they grew that became harder and harder.
They seem to want to stick to their roots here as well and avoid regulation, but at some point the same regulations you want to avoid are the ones that can give you a competitive advantage. In this case, they can be an early mover in the licensed self driving vehicle market, which can be a barrier to entry for future competitors as those regulations will most certainly evolve.
But maybe they can find some autonomous car sanctuary city somewhere that doesn't mind putting a few cyclists at risk.
BTW I'm not arguing against solar. I think it makes a lot of sense in many places, particularly the southwest. I just want folks to keep the facts straight.
Fig 8 jis an average of a subset of the sample set, as far as I can tell, and its purpose is to indicate what is possible. Its kind of strange because all they need to do is cite the actual averages from the entire sample set. But like I said it appears that sample set is limited to plants in the highest irradiance areas, not representative of the larger area.
And yes I know they naturally build some plants in the optimal areas, but we are talking averages across the wider region and in terms of the article the entire US. As I said, the number of areas where >7 irradiance is available is very small when looking on a regional, much less an national, basis.
Actually as I re-read some I may have made a mistake, the inverters are included I believe, except maybe for some of their conclusion discussion.
-5 Not insightful.
No, the real racists are the ones who pretend racism doesn't exist, or that racism is exclusively the "crazy uncle saying bad things". Real racism is often hidden inside structural or institutional systems, out of sight yet present. the crazy uncle is only the most visible form, and most easily combatted.
structural racism is far more insidious. and its the kind you're engaging in right now.
So, I see you have accused me of engaging in racism, you can't specifically point out how so you genericize an argument. I never said 'all' or 'only', but you reacted as if I did. Why was that? Stoking the fires? And did you notice I was speaking of individuals, not societies?
Well, I missed that so my mistake. Thanks for pointing that out. The rest of the article indicates it being handles differently, where the seller must pay. Its confusing, but clearly the intent is to make it optional to not use.
No way would it ever pass with the certified expert requirement.
Also, if you look at that paper, Fig 7 shows the only ones up around 30% are in irradiances of >7. If you looks at non-tracking in areas with irradiance less than 7, you'll see it maxes out at 25%. As you can see from an irradiance map, zones above 7 are pretty scarce.
http://www.nrel.gov/gis/images...
What is the percentage for new under construction? That marketing link just says they continue to sell more, but does not talk about percentages. I still believe the percentage is reducing significantly based on new projects I've reviewed, but I can't prove it for all at the moment. I have not yet seen anything showing tracking use is actually growing in percentage or even maintaining 30%. I'll have to do some more looking.
> And nobody is installing tracking PV, for the cost is too high and it requires too much maintenance,
As of 2014, 61% of new utility-scale solar plants were tracking systems (https://emp.lbl.gov/sites/all/files/lbnl-1006037_slides.pdf) (see page 23). The 10% higher cost for the tracking hardware is more than offset by the extra output you get from always facing the Sun.
To my knowledge, the use of tracking has significantly dropped in newer installation. I don't recall any recent projects that included it, but I don't have a list of all installations so maybe that is incorrect. If you include residential PV, tracking is even a smaller percent of the total. Why spend 10% more for 5% increase in CF when you can get 10% increase in total capacity for that same investment? Plus take on the added maintenance costs and reduced generation when a tilt motor fails. In some places there may be space constraints, but in general due to feed in tariffs there is no benefit in having a longer production window, only the total KWH generated matters.
I don't object to anything at all. But it was clear my point regarding CF was related to fixed panels, so if you want to include tracking the numbers are certainly higher. Furthermore, one could question why they would not include inverter drop as for any other source CF is calculated on what is delivered to the grid.
Considering that those "select" projects from 4 years ago used to calculated that maximum included those employing tracking, my point stands.
Solar capacity factors of 25% are relatively easy in the sun belt and can go as high as 36% with tracking and a high panel-to-inverter ratio
No, 25% is top end for the sunny southwest, certainly above average for fixed panels in that region. US average is a lot lower. And nobody is installing tracking PV, for the cost is too high and it requires too much maintenance, it works out better to just pay for more fixed panels.
Pure speculation on your part. Not sure what it is based on. I'm not defending this proposal, too many execution challenges to succeed IMO, but it may surprise you to know how many parents would welcome an easy and effective method to limit porn accessibility on devices their kids use. The solutions out there tend to suck, unfortunately this one probably would too. I see this as nothing but an oversimplified attempt in response to something many parents want.
Actually, according to the linked article, the man proposing the legislation thinks that you can install this filtering software in a way that would require someone to go to a state certified expert to have it removed because the law would charge you $20 to have the software removed. Or in other words, he wants every computing device sold in SC to have a rootkit installed on it.
No, there is nothing in the proposed idea that says anything of that sort. Did you make that up? If not please link to the proposition and where this is stated. The only thing required is either the device have the bloatware installed or the seller pay the $20 "tax"
Your response drifts in to many irrrellevencies, but as far as censorship please explain what is being censored here? Did you read the source article (hint..not the one above)? User controlled filters on removable bloatware is not censorship, not even remotely . The fact that some people may need help using software doesn't change that. Furthermore there are MANY parents who would live to have such filters on their family computers. I'm not sating this is a good plan, but it is certainly not censorship.
I went back to the source article. It basically is a suggestion to require that certain filtering software be installed by manufacturers or pay $20 per box which would go to fight anti-human trafficking. The software is not required to be used or even turned on by default, and evidently can be removed.
But its more fun to make this a censorship play.