Cost is not calculated that way. Beside, using worst case nuclear numbers vs best case wind numbers does not present the real picture.
New, well maintained nuclear units run at closer to 90% CF.
There seems to be a new type of denier. Maybe we can call them "danger deniers" or something, or Famous Last Worders (FMLs). They think that because everyone else is an idiot something must be safe, be it a particular chemical or nuclear contamination or some machine.
Examples:
1. Oh god, not chemicals! Tell me there's not dihydrogen monoxide in my drinking water!
2. Oh noes, not noocular radiashun!!
3. Statistically auto-pilot is safer than humans!
4. Everything gives you cancer!
Denier type behavior is more evident in those that ignore the body of scientific established data which show things to be of low risk compared to everyday risk exposures , yet they insist on assuming its really much worse or speak of those risks out of context. Your examples are hyperbolized generalizations of your own making, so you are displaying the exact behavior that you are citing.
An installed watt of nuclear generates 3 to 5 times the amount of electricity in a year as an installed watt of wind. And you get the added value of reliability and dependability.
Well Mr. D.
In this link you can find that the UK already produces 25% of it's energy with renewable sources.
And this and this article remark (unsurprisingly) that the UK has an enormous potential for wind enegy, especially off-shore.
So, limited options my ass.
Very little new renewable generation is anything but wind. And I specifically stated that offshore wind was their best option going forward. Biomass has major limits, and Hydro is basically installed, very few countries will add any any hydro generation. Like I said, options are limited.
The UK is mostly in a poor region for solar so that is not really an option, and wind performance isn't exactly spectacular. They would have to install massive amounts of offshore wind overcapacity to significantly reduce carbon production, which would be even more expensive. Their options are limited.
oh.. so please.. tell my why it is that 57.7 per cent of Scotland's electricity came from renewables in 2015? Do you think it' because Scotland does rather well with shitloads of offshore and wind generation?.. I know it is.. try researching before opening your mouth and letting your belly rumble. we currently use the following...
Hydro-electric power
Wind power
Wave power
Tidal power
Biofuels
Biodiesel
Biogas, anaerobic digestion and landfill gas
Solid biomass
Micro systems
Solar energy
Geothermal energy
And are world leaders on research too!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... and behold the plethora of renewable stuff that gives us more than half our energy needs in Scotland... so tell me... how does it feel to be someone who could not be more wrong if your name was W . Wrongy Wrongenstien???
And how much is solar and wind, the two items I was speaking to? Solar barely registers on the scale, wind is the only growing sector, that is why I spoke of it.
The UK is mostly in a poor region for solar so that is not really an option, and wind performance isn't exactly spectacular. They would have to install massive amounts of offshore wind overcapacity to significantly reduce carbon production, which would be even more expensive. Their options are limited.
exceed what the Environmental Protection Agency considers healthy.
Actually, this is not true. What is exceeded is the regulated or recommended limit, which is set lower, usually much lower, than what they consider safe or 'not healthy' from scientific evidence. Now, that doesn't mean we should be OK with the situation, so don't go off getting mad at me for no reason, I'm just pointing out a commonly seen misrepresentation of facts that bugs me.
It's reasonable research. The equipment may cost $90k now, but that doesn't mean that the techniques developed couldn't be refined, specialized and miniaturized for cheap in the future.
How about when the gigafactory for autosensing disablement equipment gets going?
Yes, but many, or perhaps most of those 564 types don't attract a $7,500 subsidy from the federal government, which probably about half the model 3s' buyers will get.
Half of the initial pre-order list, but none after that. Which is one of the reasons for the pre-order list rush.
Do you think that massively reducing install labor by having better mounting hardware might have some effect on installed cost per watt?
No, I think that would be negligible. Installation labor is pretty cheap per hour. They may make claims of 'massively reducing' install time, but there are plenty of clever installers out there that have optimized the process.
Ok, i see you have no capacity for critical thinking. He cited others peoples work so he must be legit.....what could possibly be wrong with that logic?
Thanks for putting some effort into that response, unlike your previous one. Much better!
Of course until Tesla batteries actually are produced at low cost, and we don't know when that will be, they can both suffer together and together play the "we are growing so we cant make profits" card. Unless, as I've stated elsewhere, Musk can prop up initial battery production as a capital cost.
You sound like a Solar City sales person, or employee. They may claim to be the fastest, but I doubt anybody really knows, as there are many installers out there.
If you believe he collected and measured every effect he claims you are dreaming. He didnt even state a method, nor publish his base data, just some vague charts with lines drawn by hand. Did you read the bullshit terminology he throws injust to sound scientific? I laughed. But he gets away with junk science because people like you hop right on board, and even defend him without even the least hint of critical thinking.
So, it really matters little because you've already decided to beleive in the hollywood version of radiation risks. It doesn't even matter that this guy even calls himself an activist, or that he's claiming a plethora of radiation effects that conflicts with years of previous, detailed, well documented science, but lacks even mention of how they may be related, no talk of uncertainties, no mention of other influences. Like I said its pure data manipulation, or possibly even intentional abuse.
No, I won't laugh, that is a good answer. While these days its not that hard to source such integrated systems from different suppliers, it can make sense to integrate them. But Solar City doesn't really bring any of that key technology to the table, they just bring the power supply side of it. The only place that becomes integrated is at the inverter, for all practical purposes.
They do bring the installation service. But that could be contracted out as well, as likely Solar City would (or maybe even does already) subcontract much of it.
Slashdot Mirror
Cost is not calculated that way. Beside, using worst case nuclear numbers vs best case wind numbers does not present the real picture. New, well maintained nuclear units run at closer to 90% CF.
I never said there was no wind power in Scotland, I said wind power is pretty much the only option for the UK for adding much new renewable power
There seems to be a new type of denier. Maybe we can call them "danger deniers" or something, or Famous Last Worders (FMLs). They think that because everyone else is an idiot something must be safe, be it a particular chemical or nuclear contamination or some machine.
Examples:
1. Oh god, not chemicals! Tell me there's not dihydrogen monoxide in my drinking water! 2. Oh noes, not noocular radiashun!! 3. Statistically auto-pilot is safer than humans! 4. Everything gives you cancer!
Denier type behavior is more evident in those that ignore the body of scientific established data which show things to be of low risk compared to everyday risk exposures , yet they insist on assuming its really much worse or speak of those risks out of context. Your examples are hyperbolized generalizations of your own making, so you are displaying the exact behavior that you are citing.
cost is:
wind: $1.50 / .32 = $4.70 / Wc
nuclear: $8.25 / .80 = $10.30 / Wc
An installed watt of nuclear generates 3 to 5 times the amount of electricity in a year as an installed watt of wind. And you get the added value of reliability and dependability.
Well Mr. D. In this link you can find that the UK already produces 25% of it's energy with renewable sources.
And this and this article remark (unsurprisingly) that the UK has an enormous potential for wind enegy, especially off-shore.
So, limited options my ass.
Very little new renewable generation is anything but wind. And I specifically stated that offshore wind was their best option going forward. Biomass has major limits, and Hydro is basically installed, very few countries will add any any hydro generation. Like I said, options are limited.
oh.. so please.. tell my why it is that 57.7 per cent of Scotland's electricity came from renewables in 2015? Do you think it' because Scotland does rather well with shitloads of offshore and wind generation? .. I know it is .. try researching before opening your mouth and letting your belly rumble. we currently use the following...
Hydro-electric power
Wind power
Wave power
Tidal power
Biofuels
Biodiesel
Biogas, anaerobic digestion and landfill gas
Solid biomass
Micro systems
Solar energy
Geothermal energy
And are world leaders on research too!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... and behold the plethora of renewable stuff that gives us more than half our energy needs in Scotland... so tell me... how does it feel to be someone who could not be more wrong if your name was W . Wrongy Wrongenstien???
And how much is solar and wind, the two items I was speaking to? Solar barely registers on the scale, wind is the only growing sector, that is why I spoke of it.
The UK is mostly in a poor region for solar so that is not really an option, and wind performance isn't exactly spectacular. They would have to install massive amounts of offshore wind overcapacity to significantly reduce carbon production, which would be even more expensive. Their options are limited.
exceed what the Environmental Protection Agency considers healthy.
Actually, this is not true. What is exceeded is the regulated or recommended limit, which is set lower, usually much lower, than what they consider safe or 'not healthy' from scientific evidence. Now, that doesn't mean we should be OK with the situation, so don't go off getting mad at me for no reason, I'm just pointing out a commonly seen misrepresentation of facts that bugs me.
The newer painting almost looks like a woman in mourning.
The first is in morning, which was a mistake The second in mourning,.
Those are some big vulcan ears on the first one.
It's reasonable research. The equipment may cost $90k now, but that doesn't mean that the techniques developed couldn't be refined, specialized and miniaturized for cheap in the future.
How about when the gigafactory for autosensing disablement equipment gets going?
This is not the position of the copyright office, its one person's opinion from that office. They didn't have an issue with cable card.
"This is all based on [...] Speedtest's website and apps, by the way, so the data is pretty sound."
I tried reading this aloud and couldn't keep a straight face.
According to the headline, this is just the first time. Next time they'll do even better!
Yes, but many, or perhaps most of those 564 types don't attract a $7,500 subsidy from the federal government, which probably about half the model 3s' buyers will get.
Half of the initial pre-order list, but none after that. Which is one of the reasons for the pre-order list rush.
If you wear ice vests instead of using air conditioning, you can squeak out a few more miles.
This will produce a giant boost of Linux usage on the desktop.
And pirated versions of Windows, custom Android roms.
What's the point?
You don't see it? I think its clear enough. Its all in the details. You just don't get the big picture.
Do you think that massively reducing install labor by having better mounting hardware might have some effect on installed cost per watt?
No, I think that would be negligible. Installation labor is pretty cheap per hour. They may make claims of 'massively reducing' install time, but there are plenty of clever installers out there that have optimized the process.
This may help you understand;
https://www.triumf.info/wiki/p...
He cited his own work.
Another red flag you missed.
Ok, i see you have no capacity for critical thinking. He cited others peoples work so he must be legit.....what could possibly be wrong with that logic?
Thanks for putting some effort into that response, unlike your previous one. Much better!
Of course until Tesla batteries actually are produced at low cost, and we don't know when that will be, they can both suffer together and together play the "we are growing so we cant make profits" card. Unless, as I've stated elsewhere, Musk can prop up initial battery production as a capital cost.
You sound like a Solar City sales person, or employee. They may claim to be the fastest, but I doubt anybody really knows, as there are many installers out there.
If you believe he collected and measured every effect he claims you are dreaming. He didnt even state a method, nor publish his base data, just some vague charts with lines drawn by hand. Did you read the bullshit terminology he throws injust to sound scientific? I laughed. But he gets away with junk science because people like you hop right on board, and even defend him without even the least hint of critical thinking.
So, it really matters little because you've already decided to beleive in the hollywood version of radiation risks. It doesn't even matter that this guy even calls himself an activist, or that he's claiming a plethora of radiation effects that conflicts with years of previous, detailed, well documented science, but lacks even mention of how they may be related, no talk of uncertainties, no mention of other influences. Like I said its pure data manipulation, or possibly even intentional abuse.
Google Ubers Charter.
No, I won't laugh, that is a good answer. While these days its not that hard to source such integrated systems from different suppliers, it can make sense to integrate them. But Solar City doesn't really bring any of that key technology to the table, they just bring the power supply side of it. The only place that becomes integrated is at the inverter, for all practical purposes.
They do bring the installation service. But that could be contracted out as well, as likely Solar City would (or maybe even does already) subcontract much of it.