Again, the chart is a daily average, with no indication of whether or not it was shut off during the day.
I would be somewhat surprised if they actually did cut the flow, but I've found no hard evidence either way.
[BTW, I've taken the inside tour of the dam, and would heartily recommend it to one and all.]
I agree, but its the only thing I can find. I find no where any reference to cutting flow entirely under normal operation. That's not something that would go unnoticed. Can't prove a negative with no explicit statement though. It defies what I know about most dams and ecological controls, and its is hard to imagine letting the upper section of the river go dry on a regular basis.
This is interesting;
"Water is released from Lake Mead only to meet downstream municipal and agricultural demands. Consequently, power demands in California, Arizona and Nevada do not impact its elevation." https://www.nps.gov/lake/learn...
That seems to imply that average release amounts are determined more by downstream need that power demand. Not entirely what I would have expected.
The chart doesn't really apply. It apparently tracks flow based on some sort of average, and is scaled by years, not hours. It says nothing at all about whether the flow is stopped for a few hours; the resolution isn't nearly sufficient.
Guaranteed jobs for everyone on the face of it doesn't sound like a bad idea, but it will wind up being the case that a lot of people are given pointless makework.
Yeah, and you can only have so many slashdot editors. Maybe they could work for Facebook and Twitter, deleting offensive posts.
Pretty stupid. 20 miles down river means it is at an even lower elevation, meaning you have to pump water even further vertically with that much more efficiency loss. A typical pumped hydro has a reservoir at the base of the hydro outlet for a very good reason.
The only relevant things here is the cost of building the return pipe system, and the amount of extra electricity at high value times they can get out of it, and thus the levelized cost of that electricity. That only part of the electricity (that otherwise would have been 100% wasted) is recovered is irrelevant.
More power could be recovered if a second dam was built, to create a second lake with a level just below the Hoover Dam outlets. But whether this additional power produced would be worth the cost of building this dam, and the hassle of getting approval for a second lake, is questionable.
What electricity would be 100% wasted, and why don't you think efficiency matters what it comes to cost?
If I pump it up twice as far it costs twice as much energy to pump it up, but I get twice as much when it comes tumbling back down.
Is there something I missed here, something that doesn't scale linearly?
You only get energy from the drop of water through the dam. The potential energy of the next 20 miles is lost. However, you bring up a good point in that if you are going to go through the cost of pumping water 20 miles upstream through a pipeline, it would make more sense to have reversible pump/turbines at the lower reservoir and then get more of that potential energy back.
According to TFA the pumping station will be 20 miles down river. If the water is traveling at say 5 MPH they have 4 hours from passing through the dam to reaching the pumping station and being recycled.
Effectively the river is used as a kind of delay line storage. Pretty cool.
Pretty stupid. 20 miles down river means it is at an even lower elevation, meaning you have to pump water even further vertically with that much more efficiency loss. A typical pumped hydro has a reservoir at the base of the hydro outlet for a very good reason.
The problem is... where's the lower reservoir? The Colorado River isn't going to run backwards for you.
Also:
estimates utility scale lithium-ion batteries cost 26 cents per kilowatt-hour compared with 15 cents for pumped hydro storage.
I assume they mean 2,6 and 1,5 cents, respectively.
Exactly. The Hoover Dam is a national monument, and this idea is monumentally stupid. Large dams like the Hoover constantly let water through because it is required to keep the river flowing. So you would need to let more water flow through to keep the river flowing.
Even if it made sense you'd have to carve out a large lower reservoir near the base of the dam. That fact the "Cleantechnica' didn't even mention this is a testament to their prowess at energy solutions.
He had a canned excuse ready just in case he ran into a resident while trying to burglarize the home.
From TFA:
Police said surveillance video showed that he had moved the bicycle from their backyard to their front yard before asking for their password. When the residents told him to leave, police said, he rode away on it.
Did he need to move the bike to the front yard before asking for a password? The cops likely know this, and it's only newsworthy because his prepared lie was so ridiculous.
Seems/. editors like msmash are in the very small percentage of humans that would actually fall for this excuse. The fact that he/she changed the headline to something totally false is telling.
So I wasn't the only one wondering. If you already break into a home, why not search for the fucking router. 9 out of 10 times you break into a home where the router is from the ISP and the WiFi Password is noted right on it. And that odd time when you actually manage to break into a geek's home, well, try it next door.
Why would you bother with a router when you broke in the house to steal stuff? I suppose he could have stole the router.
It sounds like he deliberately woke them up, which could mean actually shaking one of them awake. At that point you already ARE in close proximity, in a room that usually only has the one entry and exit, and the only course of action left is to get HIM away from YOU rather than the other way around,
No, it just takes reading a report or two to see that they woke up with the kid in his room. The 'asking for wifi' thing was just the only excuse this kid could come up with at the time. Evidently, he's used it before. He was there to steal stuff. But because some idiots in the press seemed to believe his excuse, the write the article that way. Now seems many here believed it at well.
He was there to steal stuff and got caught. I am laughing at the number of idiots who can't see that.
That nothing has been done to fix this shit is the real story.
So, one 'possible' penetration and no actual successful operations hacks have taken place in all those years, on a vast grid with tens of thousands potential targets, and you assume nothing has been done?
Knowing the incredible number of hack attempts that continues to escalate, maybe the impressive thing is how few penetrations of significance, and with such limited success we've seen.
I've worked 4 x 10 hour schedules in the past. It is quite nice to have one weekday to do all your shopping and errands when everyone else is at work, leaving weekends wide open. Three day weekends give you a lot more options. Unfortunately, if your business requires you to support customers on that other day, it can cause challenges. Split shifts can bring inefficiencies.
We already have alert systems for phones, TV, and radio. We don't need everything to be an alert system client, or we would force browsers to push alerts as well.
You have proven we can detect previously unmeasurably small amounts of radiation. Seriouslly? You had to boil down an entire bottle of wine to 4 grams of solids, then put that into the core of a gamma ray detector, just so you can determine that instead of one atom of Cesium-137, there were two.
Talk about over-hyped headlines. The only important sentence is, "[They] showed levels to be indistinguishable from background noise."
Yeah, its ridiculous, but/. doesn't discriminate when you can say Fukushima or radiation. Makes for a headline. Selectively of content that has credibility is long gone.
The ability to detect incredibly small trace amounts of anything could be a good story. This would be the equivalent of me farting in Kansas and someone smelling it on Uluru.
I tried to read it, but I saw discussion of a correlation with limited efforts to eliminate the very reasonable possibility that ADHD prone kids being more likely to use smartphones and develop bad usage habits. Just because a kid didn't have an ADHD baseline to begin with, doesn't mean he's not prone to develop one.
I think you'd have to use two similar populations, then take phones away from one after a certain period.
Having fun parsing? How about making a cohesive point instead, like I did.
"it is revolution to take risks in the auto industry". What a laugh. Again, his risks in 'revolutionary' manufacturing have not resulted in any improvements at all. His production numbers are based on creating extra lines to make up for the under performance of the initial one, and also on working massive numbers of people 24/7 just to eek out numbers that he was supposed to hit months ago. And nobody ever said you couldn't build an EV, or Tesla couldn't build one. EVs have already been built. Tesla is still losing money.
Only if you're incapable of rational thought do you come to that conclusion.
But hey you know a way to never fail: Don't take risks or try anything new. You know someone who could never do that? The auto industry.
So then tell me, by what logic does him taking risks lead to him revolutionizing auto production. To this point, his risk taking has been a big problem. He now uses more production lines than planned to produce the same amount of vehicles and he's caused delays that could have been avoided by using proven methods.
You know who hasn't made any advancement over well establish production capability....Musk, whose assembly line doesn't appear to be any improvement at all.
The auto industry has steadily improved assembly practices and optimized over many years. You dismiss the level of capability of established car makers, which itself is not logical.
What you have just described is non-trivial and would involve designing each assembly station twice: Once for automation and once for manual. And then you have to be able to have both of those stations fit in the same space. And then you have to decide how much extra man power you need on standby in case an automated station breaks and you want to get the manual station running. And then you have to figure when to repair the automated section of the line without endangering someone.
Wow , sounds complicated. I wonder how other manufacturers keep their lines running. They must have geniuses.
Agree there is a balance that makes sense. Needed to do a complete line reset after one fault seems extreme though. Fault tolerance is not limited to 'keep going' but can also be 'quick recovery'.
Right... the production line should keep going, producing cars, for example with a control arm in the suspension, or no brake master cylinder?
What do you think should happen? If robot X fails to put on part A, what is robot Y supposed to do with part B that is supposed to be attached to the missing part A?
Hmm, possibly a backup system, or a manual control to keep things going. Its not so much a brief stop in production, but as explained a complete reset of many items just due to one fault.
Slashdot Mirror
Again, the chart is a daily average, with no indication of whether or not it was shut off during the day.
I would be somewhat surprised if they actually did cut the flow, but I've found no hard evidence either way.
[BTW, I've taken the inside tour of the dam, and would heartily recommend it to one and all.]
I agree, but its the only thing I can find. I find no where any reference to cutting flow entirely under normal operation. That's not something that would go unnoticed. Can't prove a negative with no explicit statement though. It defies what I know about most dams and ecological controls, and its is hard to imagine letting the upper section of the river go dry on a regular basis. This is interesting;
"Water is released from Lake Mead only to meet downstream municipal and agricultural demands. Consequently, power demands in California, Arizona and Nevada do not impact its elevation."
https://www.nps.gov/lake/learn...
That seems to imply that average release amounts are determined more by downstream need that power demand. Not entirely what I would have expected.
The chart doesn't really apply. It apparently tracks flow based on some sort of average, and is scaled by years, not hours. It says nothing at all about whether the flow is stopped for a few hours; the resolution isn't nearly sufficient.
https://www.usbr.gov/lc/region...
You're not getting either one.
Neither would ever be enough.
Guaranteed jobs for everyone on the face of it doesn't sound like a bad idea, but it will wind up being the case that a lot of people are given pointless makework.
Yeah, and you can only have so many slashdot editors. Maybe they could work for Facebook and Twitter, deleting offensive posts.
Pretty stupid. 20 miles down river means it is at an even lower elevation, meaning you have to pump water even further vertically with that much more efficiency loss. A typical pumped hydro has a reservoir at the base of the hydro outlet for a very good reason.
The only relevant things here is the cost of building the return pipe system, and the amount of extra electricity at high value times they can get out of it, and thus the levelized cost of that electricity. That only part of the electricity (that otherwise would have been 100% wasted) is recovered is irrelevant.
More power could be recovered if a second dam was built, to create a second lake with a level just below the Hoover Dam outlets. But whether this additional power produced would be worth the cost of building this dam, and the hassle of getting approval for a second lake, is questionable.
What electricity would be 100% wasted, and why don't you think efficiency matters what it comes to cost?
If I pump it up twice as far it costs twice as much energy to pump it up, but I get twice as much when it comes tumbling back down.
Is there something I missed here, something that doesn't scale linearly?
You only get energy from the drop of water through the dam. The potential energy of the next 20 miles is lost. However, you bring up a good point in that if you are going to go through the cost of pumping water 20 miles upstream through a pipeline, it would make more sense to have reversible pump/turbines at the lower reservoir and then get more of that potential energy back.
Large dams like the Hoover constantly let water through
No. Water flows only during periods of peak power demand.
https://www.usbr.gov/lc/region...
According to TFA the pumping station will be 20 miles down river. If the water is traveling at say 5 MPH they have 4 hours from passing through the dam to reaching the pumping station and being recycled.
Effectively the river is used as a kind of delay line storage. Pretty cool.
Pretty stupid. 20 miles down river means it is at an even lower elevation, meaning you have to pump water even further vertically with that much more efficiency loss. A typical pumped hydro has a reservoir at the base of the hydro outlet for a very good reason.
The problem is... where's the lower reservoir? The Colorado River isn't going to run backwards for you.
Also:
I assume they mean 2,6 and 1,5 cents, respectively.
Exactly. The Hoover Dam is a national monument, and this idea is monumentally stupid. Large dams like the Hoover constantly let water through because it is required to keep the river flowing. So you would need to let more water flow through to keep the river flowing.
Even if it made sense you'd have to carve out a large lower reservoir near the base of the dam. That fact the "Cleantechnica' didn't even mention this is a testament to their prowess at energy solutions.
You are jumping from a possibility to a certainty. Is certainty really that important to you?
Is 'obvious' not important to you?
He had a canned excuse ready just in case he ran into a resident while trying to burglarize the home.
From TFA:
Police said surveillance video showed that he had moved the bicycle from their backyard to their front yard before asking for their password. When the residents told him to leave, police said, he rode away on it.
Did he need to move the bike to the front yard before asking for a password? The cops likely know this, and it's only newsworthy because his prepared lie was so ridiculous.
Seems /. editors like msmash are in the very small percentage of humans that would actually fall for this excuse. The fact that he/she changed the headline to something totally false is telling.
So I wasn't the only one wondering. If you already break into a home, why not search for the fucking router. 9 out of 10 times you break into a home where the router is from the ISP and the WiFi Password is noted right on it. And that odd time when you actually manage to break into a geek's home, well, try it next door.
Why would you bother with a router when you broke in the house to steal stuff? I suppose he could have stole the router.
It sounds like he deliberately woke them up, which could mean actually shaking one of them awake. At that point you already ARE in close proximity, in a room that usually only has the one entry and exit, and the only course of action left is to get HIM away from YOU rather than the other way around,
No, it just takes reading a report or two to see that they woke up with the kid in his room. The 'asking for wifi' thing was just the only excuse this kid could come up with at the time. Evidently, he's used it before. He was there to steal stuff. But because some idiots in the press seemed to believe his excuse, the write the article that way. Now seems many here believed it at well.
He was there to steal stuff and got caught. I am laughing at the number of idiots who can't see that.
Yup, here's a report from 2007.
https://www.forbes.com/2007/08...
That nothing has been done to fix this shit is the real story.
So, one 'possible' penetration and no actual successful operations hacks have taken place in all those years, on a vast grid with tens of thousands potential targets, and you assume nothing has been done?
Knowing the incredible number of hack attempts that continues to escalate, maybe the impressive thing is how few penetrations of significance, and with such limited success we've seen.
Good point. I have no mod points to promote.
I've worked 4 x 10 hour schedules in the past. It is quite nice to have one weekday to do all your shopping and errands when everyone else is at work, leaving weekends wide open. Three day weekends give you a lot more options. Unfortunately, if your business requires you to support customers on that other day, it can cause challenges. Split shifts can bring inefficiencies.
We already have alert systems for phones, TV, and radio. We don't need everything to be an alert system client, or we would force browsers to push alerts as well.
You have proven we can detect previously unmeasurably small amounts of radiation. Seriouslly? You had to boil down an entire bottle of wine to 4 grams of solids, then put that into the core of a gamma ray detector, just so you can determine that instead of one atom of Cesium-137, there were two. Talk about over-hyped headlines. The only important sentence is, "[They] showed levels to be indistinguishable from background noise."
Yeah, its ridiculous, but /. doesn't discriminate when you can say Fukushima or radiation. Makes for a headline. Selectively of content that has credibility is long gone.
The ability to detect incredibly small trace amounts of anything could be a good story. This would be the equivalent of me farting in Kansas and someone smelling it on Uluru.
TL;DR
I tried to read it, but I saw discussion of a correlation with limited efforts to eliminate the very reasonable possibility that ADHD prone kids being more likely to use smartphones and develop bad usage habits. Just because a kid didn't have an ADHD baseline to begin with, doesn't mean he's not prone to develop one.
I think you'd have to use two similar populations, then take phones away from one after a certain period.
Having fun parsing? How about making a cohesive point instead, like I did.
"it is revolution to take risks in the auto industry". What a laugh. Again, his risks in 'revolutionary' manufacturing have not resulted in any improvements at all. His production numbers are based on creating extra lines to make up for the under performance of the initial one, and also on working massive numbers of people 24/7 just to eek out numbers that he was supposed to hit months ago. And nobody ever said you couldn't build an EV, or Tesla couldn't build one. EVs have already been built. Tesla is still losing money.
They could just turn commercials down, or shows up, but this does BOTH!
Only if you're incapable of rational thought do you come to that conclusion.
But hey you know a way to never fail: Don't take risks or try anything new. You know someone who could never do that? The auto industry.
So then tell me, by what logic does him taking risks lead to him revolutionizing auto production. To this point, his risk taking has been a big problem. He now uses more production lines than planned to produce the same amount of vehicles and he's caused delays that could have been avoided by using proven methods.
You know who hasn't made any advancement over well establish production capability....Musk, whose assembly line doesn't appear to be any improvement at all.
The auto industry has steadily improved assembly practices and optimized over many years. You dismiss the level of capability of established car makers, which itself is not logical.
So now your logic is.......because he takes risks he will revolutionize the car assembly line?
Not working very well.
What you have just described is non-trivial and would involve designing each assembly station twice: Once for automation and once for manual. And then you have to be able to have both of those stations fit in the same space. And then you have to decide how much extra man power you need on standby in case an automated station breaks and you want to get the manual station running. And then you have to figure when to repair the automated section of the line without endangering someone.
Wow , sounds complicated. I wonder how other manufacturers keep their lines running. They must have geniuses.
Agree there is a balance that makes sense. Needed to do a complete line reset after one fault seems extreme though. Fault tolerance is not limited to 'keep going' but can also be 'quick recovery'.
Right... the production line should keep going, producing cars, for example with a control arm in the suspension, or no brake master cylinder?
What do you think should happen? If robot X fails to put on part A, what is robot Y supposed to do with part B that is supposed to be attached to the missing part A?
Hmm, possibly a backup system, or a manual control to keep things going. Its not so much a brief stop in production, but as explained a complete reset of many items just due to one fault.