> Wind is a good bit better but still needs natural gas peaking plants to back it
So does nuclear for the opposite reason. Most nukes don't throttle well, and those that do only do so for lowered economic performance.
Everyone says we should add the cost of the gas plant to the wind plant, but never say the same for the nuclear plant. That is in spite of the fact that a large amount of peaking capacity was added for the reactors. Like Nanticoke.
Their "serious research" consists entirely of a blog post and giving some money to a "company" consisting of two guys and a dog who promptly disappeared.
> The main reason the plan failed is still NIMBY
The main reason the plan failed is...
1) it never actually existed beyond a press release that succeeded in getting the techno-nerds to blogroll their advertising for free 2) Any reasonable input numbers return LCoE on the order of $35 per kWh. That compares to about 0.10 to $0.20 for ground-based PV
> You and Mr Murphy both need to take a course in logical thinking.
This aught to be good...
> It doesn't matter where it comes from or how it is created
Oh yeah, here we go...
> Burning a gallon of gas on the ground. or beaming 144000 BTU from orbit, is going to put the same amount of energy into the biosphere
Lolz. Look up "greenhouse effect".
I wish I could post the "not sure if trolling... or just stupid" graphic, but I'm too stupid to figure it out. And apparently I'm still smarter than this guy.
"even the fantastic one of parallel Universes and alternate versions of you and me. But is that last one really admissible? The best modern evidence teaches us that even with all the Universes that inflation creates, it's still a finite number"
Why is a person that doesn't understand the difference between the terms "parallel" and "multiple" even writing an article on something they so clearly don't have the first clue about?
> Without them, today's more fuel-efficient engines would sound far quieter
Lets talk jets.
I remember a CF-101 Voodoo doing it's first pass over Borden at about 200 feet in full burner. Car alarms went off, children screaming, it was amazing.
Then came the CF-18. Soo boring. Even the F-22's a wimp in comparison.
> In that culture, it wasn't "bad" to marry someone under-age
I'm reading A Distant Mirror (and you should too, it's amazing!). The Duke of something-or-other has just married a 12 year old. Much chiding ensued. But other than that, both commonplace and well admired. Hey, you have a 50% chance of not making it to 20, so you had to get married early to lock down that dowry.
Best line from the book... A knight and Lady are having a conversation, and she implies he'd be bad in the sack because his beard has less hair that certain parts of the female anatomy. He asks if this is true in her case, and she states that it's not, she's completely bald in this region. Thinking for a moment, he replies that he'll take her word for it, because "grass doesn't grow on the well-trodden path".
"But Google's goal behind the latest version of the app is to enhance and simplify the features so they work more quickly and fluidly without any lag time. The latest version of Google Translate aims to change that."
> they're basically sampling random noise off of a CCD and claim that eventually it will produce the Mona Lisa
Almost...
> He says the interaction of the CCD with the cosmic background radiation ought to generate energy fluctuations > that are equivalent to the array containing all possible images in quantum superposition.
All paintings at the same time.
It's utter rubbish of course. The decoherence time of a CCD is close to zero. There won't be a single complete image in there, let alone all of them.
> t Oracle, PostgreSQL and MySQL python modules all do things differently
But so do the underlying DB's. That might sound like deflection, but considering that there's still no way to do cross-platform "return the first 10 rows" on the DB, I'm willing to give the API guys some leeway.
Of course you do, you're taking a pill. The contents of the pill matter little.
> Dude, there is a TON of low hanging fruit... been almost no research into the field
Which means there's a TON of BS. Maybe I'm just a little older than you, but NAD is the latest in a very very very long string of things that ultimately proved to do nothing, as one would expect.
If it doesn't have a double-blind, it's not true. You should take that to the bank.
They were pure turbojets. Zero bypass. You are wrong.
> the most efficient jet engines of their time in fact.
Not even remotely close.
You are, of course, referring to the overall thermal efficiency, which was indeed quite high. This is a wonderful measure of fitness for a *heat engine*, but exactly useless for measuring the fitness of a *jet engine*, which has to use that heat to accelerate air to provide thrust. *That* is called thrust specific fuel consumption, and the Olympus was poor even for its era - the TF39 (CF6) of the same era was twice as efficient:
The Fallacy of the Excluded Middle to be exact. And it's right here: "and they're going to fly in and out of spaceports some distance from the destination city"
Why would that be true? The *entire article* hinges on that statement. Yet there's exactly zero explanation of why this would be so.
One might make the argument that a hypersonic would be larger than a subsonic. That's likely true, one might imagine it being twice as large. So a Cessna Citation would be the size of a G5, and a G5 would be the size of a C100. All of these operate from small to medium sized airports. Even if it's the size of a 737, it's still going to be able to land and pull up to the executive terminal at every major city on the planet.
End of argument. He's already waved away the security issues and price by defining the market to be bizjet customers, so there appears to be nothing left.
Slashdot Mirror
> But nobody wants to dismantle old nuclear plants that are still running fine.
Quebec did. New Brunswick wished it did. Ontario is about to.
> Today, wind can augment hydro, and to lesser degree, other power sources.
Food for thought...
Six months worth of Canada's total power use is currently backed up behind dams on the east side of James Bay.
One of the best wind resources in north america is the east side of James Bay.
> Wind is a good bit better but still needs natural gas peaking plants to back it
So does nuclear for the opposite reason. Most nukes don't throttle well, and those that do only do so for lowered economic performance.
Everyone says we should add the cost of the gas plant to the wind plant, but never say the same for the nuclear plant. That is in spite of the fact that a large amount of peaking capacity was added for the reactors. Like Nanticoke.
> your negligently operated nuclear power plant blows up and destroys my house that's criminal negligent
I'm sure you'll feel completely satisfied by their eventual 3-year suspended sentence when you're living in a tent.
> And BTW Olkiluoto absurd costs might indicate Areva's EPR design is too expensive
Every reactor under construction in "the west" is over budget.
I believe that statement is true at all times in the last 50 years.
> but we should way 2 more years when the first EPR installation in China enters operation
Sure, because we all trust Chinese bookkeeping on construction projects. Especially after Sichuan. Or Banqiao.
> and by doing so giving a big middle finder to those victims
Like you're giving a big middle finger to the 160,000 people forced out of their perfectly good homes by Fukushima.
I'm not sure I would be so quick to ignore their suffering just to make a point.
> Do you trust those that are more driven by their agenda than human compassion?
You should definitely be asking yourself that very question.
> but Solar for now can't be baseload anyhow
Baseload power is currently selling for 1.8 cents/kWh. Peak is selling for about 25 cents.
> I think orbital will be a viable choice vs nuclear or gas.
Numbers please.
> PG&E did some serious research into it
Their "serious research" consists entirely of a blog post and giving some money to a "company" consisting of two guys and a dog who promptly disappeared.
> The main reason the plan failed is still NIMBY
The main reason the plan failed is...
1) it never actually existed beyond a press release that succeeded in getting the techno-nerds to blogroll their advertising for free
2) Any reasonable input numbers return LCoE on the order of $35 per kWh. That compares to about 0.10 to $0.20 for ground-based PV
A science fiction author? Faint praise indeed.
It's not like the math is complex. If you feel it's being misrepresented, fine, post your numbers. Here's mine:
https://matter2energy.wordpress.com/2012/03/17/the-maury-equation-redux/
> You and Mr Murphy both need to take a course in logical thinking.
This aught to be good...
> It doesn't matter where it comes from or how it is created
Oh yeah, here we go...
> Burning a gallon of gas on the ground. or beaming 144000 BTU from orbit, is going to put the same amount of energy into the biosphere
Lolz. Look up "greenhouse effect".
I wish I could post the "not sure if trolling... or just stupid" graphic, but I'm too stupid to figure it out. And apparently I'm still smarter than this guy.
"even the fantastic one of parallel Universes and alternate versions of you and me. But is that last one really admissible? The best modern evidence teaches us that even with all the Universes that inflation creates, it's still a finite number"
Why is a person that doesn't understand the difference between the terms "parallel" and "multiple" even writing an article on something they so clearly don't have the first clue about?
> The most successful companies need a vision
Agree. Otherwise people start pulling in different directions. Like Apple in the 1990s.
> and both Apple and Microsoft have one
Disagree.
Apple's early 1980s vision was to put the GUI on the desktop. They did that, and then spend the next decade floundering.
MS's vision was to put the NT kernel everywhere. They did that, and then spent the next decade floundering.
Apple's resurgence may be smart, or it might just be better timing.
> When Episodes 1-3 were actually released, many found them unsatisfying
Riiiight, unsatisfying. That's exactly the right description to use.
> If you want to quite literally BURN MONEY on shit like that
I had a guy explain to me where the $50,000 he put into his Dodge Neon went.
When you're that stupid, how do you remember to keep breathing?
> Without them, today's more fuel-efficient engines would sound far quieter
Lets talk jets.
I remember a CF-101 Voodoo doing it's first pass over Borden at about 200 feet in full burner. Car alarms went off, children screaming, it was amazing.
Then came the CF-18. Soo boring. Even the F-22's a wimp in comparison.
Maybe we should add fake noise at air shows?
BAM!
> Net Neutrality means mandating that developers and services must create something that works on your dying platform
Correct. Prepare for the iPhone Settings app on BB. Because not having that would be "unfair".
> In that culture, it wasn't "bad" to marry someone under-age
I'm reading A Distant Mirror (and you should too, it's amazing!). The Duke of something-or-other has just married a 12 year old. Much chiding ensued. But other than that, both commonplace and well admired. Hey, you have a 50% chance of not making it to 20, so you had to get married early to lock down that dowry.
Best line from the book... A knight and Lady are having a conversation, and she implies he'd be bad in the sack because his beard has less hair that certain parts of the female anatomy. He asks if this is true in her case, and she states that it's not, she's completely bald in this region. Thinking for a moment, he replies that he'll take her word for it, because "grass doesn't grow on the well-trodden path".
Burn!
"But Google's goal behind the latest version of the app is to enhance and simplify the features so they work more quickly and fluidly without any lag time. The latest version of Google Translate aims to change that."
So... slower and laggier in the new version then?
Maybe the story author needs Google Translate.
> they're basically sampling random noise off of a CCD and claim that eventually it will produce the Mona Lisa
Almost...
> He says the interaction of the CCD with the cosmic background radiation ought to generate energy fluctuations
> that are equivalent to the array containing all possible images in quantum superposition.
All paintings at the same time.
It's utter rubbish of course. The decoherence time of a CCD is close to zero. There won't be a single complete image in there, let alone all of them.
> t Oracle, PostgreSQL and MySQL python modules all do things differently
But so do the underlying DB's. That might sound like deflection, but considering that there's still no way to do cross-platform "return the first 10 rows" on the DB, I'm willing to give the API guys some leeway.
> There's a reason I charge a hell of a lot more to develop on Linux and OS X vs on a MS platform.
Especially under VS13 where you can finally use GIT.
That said, Xcode did get better in 6.x, but you still can't do a "find all references" ?!
> and I feel FANTASTIC as a result
Of course you do, you're taking a pill. The contents of the pill matter little.
> Dude, there is a TON of low hanging fruit ... been almost no research into the field
Which means there's a TON of BS. Maybe I'm just a little older than you, but NAD is the latest in a very very very long string of things that ultimately proved to do nothing, as one would expect.
If it doesn't have a double-blind, it's not true. You should take that to the bank.
> Concorde's engines WERE turbofans
They were pure turbojets. Zero bypass. You are wrong.
> the most efficient jet engines of their time in fact.
Not even remotely close.
You are, of course, referring to the overall thermal efficiency, which was indeed quite high. This is a wonderful measure of fitness for a *heat engine*, but exactly useless for measuring the fitness of a *jet engine*, which has to use that heat to accelerate air to provide thrust. *That* is called thrust specific fuel consumption, and the Olympus was poor even for its era - the TF39 (CF6) of the same era was twice as efficient:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thrust_specific_fuel_consumption
The Fallacy of the Excluded Middle to be exact. And it's right here: "and they're going to fly in and out of spaceports some distance from the destination city"
Why would that be true? The *entire article* hinges on that statement. Yet there's exactly zero explanation of why this would be so.
One might make the argument that a hypersonic would be larger than a subsonic. That's likely true, one might imagine it being twice as large. So a Cessna Citation would be the size of a G5, and a G5 would be the size of a C100. All of these operate from small to medium sized airports. Even if it's the size of a 737, it's still going to be able to land and pull up to the executive terminal at every major city on the planet.
End of argument. He's already waved away the security issues and price by defining the market to be bizjet customers, so there appears to be nothing left.