Not engaging in blatant racial discrimination is nothing like intentionally writing bad loans because you have no skin in the game.
Banks had no skin in the game because the government took all the risk. They did this purposely to enable the writing of mortgages to low income people who otherwise might not be able to qualify. At the time, banks were being charged with racism for not qualifying more low income people. So it was a political move by the government in the name of helping the poor. It was motivated by serving the poor, just as is the pressure on Amazon to serve the poor.
Now, if you want to read racism into that, if you view the world through the lens of race, you can.
That would only be true if demand for energy were perfectly inelastic.
The problem here is that you are speaking in philosophical terms, and I am speaking a terms of practicality and realism. In the real and practical world, you must have storage to use 100% solar and wind based renewables. In a hypothetical world, which would never really exist, you could make the case storage would not be needed.
Well, then take a piece of paper and do the math your self?
To store something you need to produce more power than you need at the moment where you produce it. Otherwise you have nothing to store.
To use stored power you need to have a situation where you need more power than you can produce.
Now make some simple graphs and try to construct both situations close enough (in time) together, so that storage makes sense.
Then you realize quickly that this desperate need for storage is a myth.
The only way where storage makes sense is for individual installations, not grid wide.
This, that you just wrote, is highly concentrated ignorant bullshit. It makes no sense at all, not a bit. Anyone reading can see that, and even the renewable industry itself knows storage is needed and is pursuing those technologies. So, I don't even need to respond further.
Did you know that before refrigerators, people used to have fresh milk delivered every day to their front door? True story. So making refrigerators too expensive to run overnight will create jobs, and that's a good thing, isn't it?
And before residential A/C, people used to put up wet sheets in their windows to stay cool. Today, swamp coolers, ground source heat pumps, and earth sheltered construction are a few modern, low power alternatives. So we'll be fine.
Yup, that's progress. No refrigerators. Did you know that swamp coolers aren't worth a damn in humid climates? Those heat pumps you talk about require electrical energy and are very costly. I guess the poor lose out again. You simply validated my points, not a practical path forward without storage. You are trying so hard to justify San Diego's grand oversight. Why not just accept that storage is needed? We can have refrigerators, Air Conditioning at night, and the poor won't be left holding the short end of the stick. Or are you just stuck on your idealistic but impractical solution?
To be carbon neutral, it is enough to sell excess power to neighbouring "districts" and get their excess power when you are in need
The idea that you need storage for a renewable grid, regardless of technology, is a/. myth.
Funny stuff. There is a big difference between 100% renewables, as stated, and 'carbon neutral", which was not stated. The latter is just an accounting game, when in reality they are using power at times from non-renewable sources. But, for an entirely renewable grid depending on wind and solar, you'd need storage, there is no other practical solution. Its obvious to anyone with common sense.
The only way to prevent that is to make electricity free, but that will only create a different set of problems.
I agree with you on that point. But I still don't think its realistic to expect people to not run air conditioners on a hot summer evening, when the winds are not blowing. Not to mention running refrigerators. You are not going to be able to power just those two things alone without a huge amount of storage.
There is only a limited amount of demand you can shift, and even with that there is still intermittance challenges. If you are saying charge so much that people can't use energy when they want to unless they are wealthy, you are just creating a different set of problems. You can assume that shifting demand is a solution if you want, but all the information we have to date tells us its simply not practical. And, you can decrease overall demand a lot, but if you eliminate the conventional supply you'll still be way behind the curve from a supply side with renewables.
That's true, but you're overstating the problem. You only really need a tiny bit of storage to maintain a voltage on the wire.
No, you need a lot of storage for time shifting. You may be thinking of voltage regulation and frequency response, but that is not the central challenge. They need to store a lot of power generated during the day for use at night, and/or when the wind is blowing for use when it is not. Storage for hours or even days is required, and a lot of it. Unless, of course, you back it all up with conventional power sources and not renewables.
Its a thing that looks like a BluRay disc, you can put it in your BluRay player and after a long wait, hear some music. But for some reason there is no picture.
The design flaw that shut down San Onofre was in the steam generators, which were replaced just like in many other plants. The replacements were a modified design that was supposed to be more efficient. After replacement the new Steam Generators showed excessive wear in the tubes after only a few operating cycles. While tube wear is normal, this was excessive. It was a design flaw in the new steam generators, nobody knew about it until they operated a few cycles and did the normal tube inspections.
Once discovered, they were able to safety operate for a few more cycles by plugging damaged tubes, but they would need to replace the steam generators again to keep operating long term. Replacement is a very big cost, a few hundred million. Of course, many legal battles with the Steam Generator supplier followed, along with political storm, and since there is already tremendous opposition to nuclear in California, they gave in and just decided to shut down.
Its also important to note that steam generator tube leakage is not a public safety issue. It is quickly and easily detected, it does not affect safe shutdown of the plant. So, even if they kept running and some of the degraded tubes ruptured, the only issue would be the slight contamination of the secondary system, at no point would there be any increased risk of not being able to shut down safely.
Unfortunately, the facts get twisted and turned and reported with hyperbole. The operators are made out to be careless greedy monsters. And the plant described by the ignorant as some sort of ticking time bomb. More people just accept that take on the matter rather than learn what really happened.
So, you are saying there could be landslides into the Great Lakes causing a tsunami? Even the guy that made the Sharknado movie would say that's preposterous.
They have created a 75 page plan. I looked at it, and it does not say how they are going to generate the power, it just says the will add a shitload of renewables. And, the word 'storage' is not stated in the entire plan except for an appendix that discusses carbon sequestration. They can't do it without storage. They do a lot of talk about cutting back on just about everything.
Actually, they installed new equipment with a design flaw, but they were not aware of it, nor the vendor, until it was discovered during operation. The plant had already paid for itself through over 30 years of operation, and could have replaced the equipment and continued to operate safely for many come, but political opposition pretty much took away that option. So, blame the politicians as well.
A lot of the problem with Fukishima was spend reactor rods being stored on site in storage intended for temporary use. Are you willing to bet that equivalent problems don't exist for US plants? To me it appears that the odds are that safety concerns are frequently avoided in the interest of economic operation. Also because there's nowhere better to put them.
The pools were damaged from the effects of the tsunami and the damage it caused to the plant, so no, unless a tsunami hits one I don't have concerns. Even with the tsunami, and the damage from it and the hydrogen explosions, the fuel rods actually remained intact and safe. Every other plant and fuel pool in Japan was just fine even with the much greater than anticipated earthquake. Most of the Fukushima pools were OK, only the one pool suffered significant damage.
Taking off with batteries is stupid, you'll be carrying that extra battery and motor weight for the entire flight for no reason. Aircraft carrier makers figured out how to give planes a take-off boost long ago in a much more practical way.
>But the question is, can solar panels on a plane offset the energy consumption enough to make a difference? That's probably also a no, but that's where the question should start.
There's just not enough energy in sunlight per square foot to make it worth it. You put all you effort into creating a huge receptor area and keeping weight down that the other needs become impracticable (comfort, speed, luggage, etc). Storage density and associated weight are the things that matter. If we have a very big leap in storage capability, then short hop flights with small planes might become practical. Until then, we might see some recreational crafts that get used for a very short duration thrill.
"LOCA Attack"? I like how creative folks can be when making stuff up. And also conspiracy theories regarding TMI. Its public information what happened, yes there where human errors and design issues, and yet the entire event never hurt anyone. The amount of release was so small, you could be right at the effluent point and receive less than a medical x-ray dose. But of course, you read somewhere on someone' blog that it was much more and a big cover up and you certainly like that better.
>> And how is a tsunami going to hit Indian Pt.
There are some lakes upriver. A tsunami is definitely possible, if unlikely :
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
There is also the possibility of a normal flood, which nearly destroyed a few nukes already.
Did you read your link? Maybe only if there were a volcano in the vicinity.
IP3, just like any other US Plant, has a lot of margin in its seismic design basis, and will handle a quake much bigger than the licensing spec. We saw this proven with the plants in Japan, they all handled a much bigger earthquake than licensing spec, and all shut down safely. Of course, Fukushima plants were deluged by the tsunami, which the plant was not designed to handle, causing the accident.
And how is a tsunami going to hit Indian Pt.? If there is some other way it could be deluged, I would agree it should be shut down, but a 'mishap' will result in an event like Three Mile Island, where essentially nothing is released, and the surrounding area remains perfectly safe.
Slashdot Mirror
Not engaging in blatant racial discrimination is nothing like intentionally writing bad loans because you have no skin in the game.
Banks had no skin in the game because the government took all the risk. They did this purposely to enable the writing of mortgages to low income people who otherwise might not be able to qualify. At the time, banks were being charged with racism for not qualifying more low income people. So it was a political move by the government in the name of helping the poor. It was motivated by serving the poor, just as is the pressure on Amazon to serve the poor.
Now, if you want to read racism into that, if you view the world through the lens of race, you can.
That would only be true if demand for energy were perfectly inelastic.
The problem here is that you are speaking in philosophical terms, and I am speaking a terms of practicality and realism. In the real and practical world, you must have storage to use 100% solar and wind based renewables. In a hypothetical world, which would never really exist, you could make the case storage would not be needed.
Well, then take a piece of paper and do the math your self?
To store something you need to produce more power than you need at the moment where you produce it. Otherwise you have nothing to store.
To use stored power you need to have a situation where you need more power than you can produce.
Now make some simple graphs and try to construct both situations close enough (in time) together, so that storage makes sense.
Then you realize quickly that this desperate need for storage is a myth.
The only way where storage makes sense is for individual installations, not grid wide.
This, that you just wrote, is highly concentrated ignorant bullshit. It makes no sense at all, not a bit. Anyone reading can see that, and even the renewable industry itself knows storage is needed and is pursuing those technologies. So, I don't even need to respond further.
TIL setting prices at market equilibrium is "idealistic but impractical."
Whatever, but you still need a lot of storage to be using 100% renewables.
. Going from ~40% renewables to 100% does not affect the storage situation at the slightest.
The most ignorant thing I think I've seen you say.
Did you know that before refrigerators, people used to have fresh milk delivered every day to their front door? True story. So making refrigerators too expensive to run overnight will create jobs, and that's a good thing, isn't it?
And before residential A/C, people used to put up wet sheets in their windows to stay cool. Today, swamp coolers, ground source heat pumps, and earth sheltered construction are a few modern, low power alternatives. So we'll be fine.
Yup, that's progress. No refrigerators. Did you know that swamp coolers aren't worth a damn in humid climates? Those heat pumps you talk about require electrical energy and are very costly. I guess the poor lose out again. You simply validated my points, not a practical path forward without storage. You are trying so hard to justify San Diego's grand oversight. Why not just accept that storage is needed? We can have refrigerators, Air Conditioning at night, and the poor won't be left holding the short end of the stick. Or are you just stuck on your idealistic but impractical solution?
To be carbon neutral, it is enough to sell excess power to neighbouring "districts" and get their excess power when you are in need
The idea that you need storage for a renewable grid, regardless of technology, is a /. myth.
Funny stuff. There is a big difference between 100% renewables, as stated, and 'carbon neutral", which was not stated. The latter is just an accounting game, when in reality they are using power at times from non-renewable sources. But, for an entirely renewable grid depending on wind and solar, you'd need storage, there is no other practical solution. Its obvious to anyone with common sense.
The only way to prevent that is to make electricity free, but that will only create a different set of problems.
I agree with you on that point. But I still don't think its realistic to expect people to not run air conditioners on a hot summer evening, when the winds are not blowing. Not to mention running refrigerators. You are not going to be able to power just those two things alone without a huge amount of storage.
There is only a limited amount of demand you can shift, and even with that there is still intermittance challenges. If you are saying charge so much that people can't use energy when they want to unless they are wealthy, you are just creating a different set of problems. You can assume that shifting demand is a solution if you want, but all the information we have to date tells us its simply not practical. And, you can decrease overall demand a lot, but if you eliminate the conventional supply you'll still be way behind the curve from a supply side with renewables.
That's true, but you're overstating the problem. You only really need a tiny bit of storage to maintain a voltage on the wire.
No, you need a lot of storage for time shifting. You may be thinking of voltage regulation and frequency response, but that is not the central challenge. They need to store a lot of power generated during the day for use at night, and/or when the wind is blowing for use when it is not. Storage for hours or even days is required, and a lot of it. Unless, of course, you back it all up with conventional power sources and not renewables.
What's a CD?
Its a thing that looks like a BluRay disc, you can put it in your BluRay player and after a long wait, hear some music. But for some reason there is no picture.
The design flaw that shut down San Onofre was in the steam generators, which were replaced just like in many other plants. The replacements were a modified design that was supposed to be more efficient. After replacement the new Steam Generators showed excessive wear in the tubes after only a few operating cycles. While tube wear is normal, this was excessive. It was a design flaw in the new steam generators, nobody knew about it until they operated a few cycles and did the normal tube inspections.
Once discovered, they were able to safety operate for a few more cycles by plugging damaged tubes, but they would need to replace the steam generators again to keep operating long term. Replacement is a very big cost, a few hundred million. Of course, many legal battles with the Steam Generator supplier followed, along with political storm, and since there is already tremendous opposition to nuclear in California, they gave in and just decided to shut down.
Its also important to note that steam generator tube leakage is not a public safety issue. It is quickly and easily detected, it does not affect safe shutdown of the plant. So, even if they kept running and some of the degraded tubes ruptured, the only issue would be the slight contamination of the secondary system, at no point would there be any increased risk of not being able to shut down safely.
Unfortunately, the facts get twisted and turned and reported with hyperbole. The operators are made out to be careless greedy monsters. And the plant described by the ignorant as some sort of ticking time bomb. More people just accept that take on the matter rather than learn what really happened.
Yeah. You'd think with all that awareness of the importance of storage, San Diego would have included it in their plan.
So, you are saying there could be landslides into the Great Lakes causing a tsunami? Even the guy that made the Sharknado movie would say that's preposterous.
They have created a 75 page plan. I looked at it, and it does not say how they are going to generate the power, it just says the will add a shitload of renewables. And, the word 'storage' is not stated in the entire plan except for an appendix that discusses carbon sequestration. They can't do it without storage. They do a lot of talk about cutting back on just about everything.
Actually, they installed new equipment with a design flaw, but they were not aware of it, nor the vendor, until it was discovered during operation. The plant had already paid for itself through over 30 years of operation, and could have replaced the equipment and continued to operate safely for many come, but political opposition pretty much took away that option. So, blame the politicians as well.
A lot of the problem with Fukishima was spend reactor rods being stored on site in storage intended for temporary use. Are you willing to bet that equivalent problems don't exist for US plants? To me it appears that the odds are that safety concerns are frequently avoided in the interest of economic operation. Also because there's nowhere better to put them.
The pools were damaged from the effects of the tsunami and the damage it caused to the plant, so no, unless a tsunami hits one I don't have concerns. Even with the tsunami, and the damage from it and the hydrogen explosions, the fuel rods actually remained intact and safe. Every other plant and fuel pool in Japan was just fine even with the much greater than anticipated earthquake. Most of the Fukushima pools were OK, only the one pool suffered significant damage.
Taking off with batteries is stupid, you'll be carrying that extra battery and motor weight for the entire flight for no reason. Aircraft carrier makers figured out how to give planes a take-off boost long ago in a much more practical way.
>But the question is, can solar panels on a plane offset the energy consumption enough to make a difference? That's probably also a no, but that's where the question should start.
There's just not enough energy in sunlight per square foot to make it worth it. You put all you effort into creating a huge receptor area and keeping weight down that the other needs become impracticable (comfort, speed, luggage, etc). Storage density and associated weight are the things that matter. If we have a very big leap in storage capability, then short hop flights with small planes might become practical. Until then, we might see some recreational crafts that get used for a very short duration thrill.
"LOCA Attack"? I like how creative folks can be when making stuff up. And also conspiracy theories regarding TMI. Its public information what happened, yes there where human errors and design issues, and yet the entire event never hurt anyone. The amount of release was so small, you could be right at the effluent point and receive less than a medical x-ray dose. But of course, you read somewhere on someone' blog that it was much more and a big cover up and you certainly like that better.
>> And how is a tsunami going to hit Indian Pt. There are some lakes upriver. A tsunami is definitely possible, if unlikely : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... There is also the possibility of a normal flood, which nearly destroyed a few nukes already.
Did you read your link? Maybe only if there were a volcano in the vicinity.
IP3, just like any other US Plant, has a lot of margin in its seismic design basis, and will handle a quake much bigger than the licensing spec. We saw this proven with the plants in Japan, they all handled a much bigger earthquake than licensing spec, and all shut down safely. Of course, Fukushima plants were deluged by the tsunami, which the plant was not designed to handle, causing the accident.
And how is a tsunami going to hit Indian Pt.? If there is some other way it could be deluged, I would agree it should be shut down, but a 'mishap' will result in an event like Three Mile Island, where essentially nothing is released, and the surrounding area remains perfectly safe.
I hereby suggest we allow the plant to continue operation. After all, we need to create more jobs for Americans, or so I've heard.
CAPTCHA: proper
A completely fabricated number. Nowhere near that will be required. Of course, accuracy doesn't matter in the FUD laden world of anti-nuke activism.
It will be easier to manufacture and excuse or two. And even more people will buy those.