"although I think that at some future point it might be useful to just put at least the smaller stuff in a higher 'parking orbit' for later destruction or recycling. This way you wouldn't lose one vacuum cleaner for each satellite retrieved. And much later down the road, it might be useful to collect bigger units — expended boosters, for example — as raw materials and/or containers"
I don't think you understand the issue. These debris are largely small parts from paint flakes to metal needles. The amount of larger "useful" material is small. Moreover, it's in different orbits. You'd spend more fuel running around getting them than you would save just launching up new mass.
> Theft is theft. That it's easy should not make a difference.
I agree completely.
The old adage is "time is money", so by my measure, if I took time to do something, anything, I should have the ability to make money from it.
This is a *theoretical* issue. We as a society can decide what we choose to value and protect. We used to value land above all, but today we have a wider concept of "work" and "ownership" that includes "ideas". If we, as a society, decide that we believe people should be able to protect ideas, then we protect ideas. Its as simple as that.
> What people are doing here is taking the labor of other individuals and destroying their ability to profit from it.
I disagree completely.
This is *not* a theoretical issue, as dollars are real-world objects. So then instead of simply deciding the outcome, we *have* to measure it. We can pass all the laws we want repealing gravity, but the universe won't care.
So then we need an empirical result. No problem! Movie piracy is rampant, yet the movie industry continues to demonstrate record profits.
Sorry, the real world disagrees with your statement.
The DoE report you're quoting is widely regarded as bogus within the industry. People complain about their skewed assumptions all the time. For instance, this paper has been making the rounds lately (even here on/. IIRC):
http://qspace.library.queensu.ca/handle/1974/6879
The DoE is the organization developing the "advanced nuclear" and gets funded to do so, so one might suspect that it comes out more positive than other reports. The very report you quote claims that such an "advanced nuclear" plant will cost about $3.50 a Watt. However, at the very same time as they started quoting that number (it's remained unchanged for a few years now), Moody's prepared a long report on the topic, and concluded that the price would be between $5 and $6.
And now we have the answer, the actual price is *over* $6 for the very best case. For comparison, AECL's ACR1000 came in at $8.25. So in other words, it appears likely that the DoE is fudging their numbers.
Then of course one also has to look at the other numbers in the same report. If you multiply the levelized capital cost by the capacity factor you get some estimation of their CAPEX assumptions. For PV, that comes to over $8, when in fact commercial plants are going in today at under $3. If you plug that number into their calculation, the cost of PV comes out to about the same as nuclear. You also have to note that the price they quote for PV and wind hasn't changed for three years, while the CAPEX on PV has come down almost 80% during that period. As the LCoE of PV is basically the CAPEX (look at the calculation) that means that the quoted price should have gone down by the same amount. Yet it remains the same figure that it was in 2009.
But don't take my word for it, do the calculation yourself. Here, I'll explain how to do this yourself, easily:
You are referring to "DOE" as in "Department of Energy", right? Formerly known as the "Atomic Energy Commission"? The organization who's budget is highly dependant on developing nuclear technology? The one who has an interest in promoting development of such technology in order to get a larger budget?
Now who would *possibly* think their numbers might be skewed in favour of "Advanced Nuclear"?
> In the DECADE before those plants are built, solar and wind will be less than HALF the cost they are today
PV yes, wind is likely getting down around the bottom of the curve already though.
That is the real issue though: the price of nuclear has gone *up* since it hit the grid, and will continue to do so as long as U remains a proxy for oil prices (look it up on a graph some time) Wind has come down about five times (or more?) during the same period, and PV about 50 times. PV has come down 70% in the last *two years*.
So the question isn't "good vs. bad", it's more like "in 10 years what will we want in the first place?"
> false, solar panels do degrade, about 0.5% or more per year
False, both in theory and in number. I'm a professional in the PV field, do you really think you know more about this than I do?
The European Solar Test Installation and LEEE/TISO has been running since 1982 and has demonstrated 0.2% degradation. The NREL system is slightly newer (they keep rotating panels out) but has demonstrated similar performance. There is ample real-world data on this. Let me just quote the TISO report, intro:
"In 21 years of service, the Arco Solar ASI 16-2300 modules of the 10 kW TISO plant showed several signs of physical degradation. Yellowing of PVB encapsulant and hot-spots affected the module efficiency. Nevertheless, the results of the indoor performance measurements of all plant modules indicate that the ASI 16-2300 modules are still working in a very satisfactory manner."
the report concludes
"After one year of exposure, in absence of particular defects, all the modules became stable."
That is, after initial "light soak", the panels simply stopped degrading. Entirely. Or to put it in other terms *THE PANELS DO NOT DEGRADE OVER TIME*. The only loss of power events after that time have been due to physical problems:
"Yellowing of encapsulant, delamination and hot-spots are the principal causes of power degradation of ASI 16-2300 modules."
Overall, the measured degradation, *including* mechanical failure, was 0.2% per year. This is considered typical.
You can read the report here:
ANALYSIS OF WEATHERED c-Si PV MODULES - http://www.isaac.supsi.ch/isaac/pubblicazioni/Fotovoltaico/Conferences/Osaka%20(Japan)%20-%203rd%20WPVSEC%20-%20May%202003/s5o-c9-03%20analysis%20of%20weathered%20c-si%20pv%20modules.pdf
It is worth nothing that these are among the very first widely available commercial PV panels - ARCO was the very first PV plant to go into operation. You can read the report here:
We've learned a WHOLE LOT about manufacturing since then, and the expectation is that modern panels will last even longer. And why not? There's only a couple of ingredients in a panel - silicon (cells), silicon (front panel), aluminium (frame), silver (wiring) and a little bit of plastic and copper in the combiner. It is, by any approximation, a window.
But for those of you who aren't yet convinced, more reading:
"The Results of Performance Measurements of Field-aged Crystalline Silicon Photovoltaic Modules " "The Performance of Crystalline Silicon Photovoltaic Solar Modules after 22 Years of Continuous Outdoor Exposure" "20 years of life and more: where is the end of life of a PV module"
They all come to the same conclusion, that gradual degradation does not exist, and most failures are "mechanical", notably problems with the back sheets separating.
"maintained nuclear plants work for over 60 years, I've scheduled such maintenance"
No, you haven't. That's because the oldest operational nuclear power plant, Oyster Creek, is only 42 years old, and the longest running in history was Calder Hall at 47 but that closed. So there is no such thing for you to have scheduled.
But that said, given your past statements to the effect that you're a perl/Unix hack who works in IT, you're credibility on this is limited in any event. I have to conclude, as would the "common man", that you have no official dealings with the power industry, let alone nuclear.
"So, once capacity factor is taken into account: $6.36/watt, divided by 0.9 = $7.06 per watt for nuclear $3/watt, divided by 0.2 = $15 per watt for solar in Arizona, $20/watt or more in areas with less sun:
You're missing only one thing, the cost of capital. Since PV goes in basically overnight, theres no carrying costs. Nuclear plants take years to build, so you have to write down the interest in the meantime.
Right now that's not a huge effect because of the low interest rates. 20 years ago... it's what really killed nuclear.
> your solar panel will degrade to uselessness in a couple of decades
Incorrect. The very first run of commercial assembly-line solar panels, built in the 1970s, are still working perfectly today. Several systems have operated continually since the 1980s.
There's a misconception that panels slowly degrade over time. They don't. They tend to work very close to their initial standard and then suddenly fail - normally due to physical problems like the back sheet coming off or water working its way in. The chance of any one of these errors occurring is about 0.2% per year.
The average lifetime of a modern panel is likely between 40 and 100 years. No one knows, because we haven't been building them that long.
On the contrary, nuclear plants are generally designed for 25 years, and really do require replacement/refurb at that point. Look up "Darlington power plant" some time.
> Because you can't devote the entire state of Nevada to solar power generation
The area of land needed to supply *all* power in the USA - not just electricity, but EVERY form of power - is about 1/5th the size of the paved area of the USA. There's more than enough rooftop space to do it, already. And that's assuming Alta is bogus and their 25% efficient panel doesn't work...
So do tow truck drivers. What is the comparison in numbers? Ten thousand to one?
"The last thing I want to do is to have the helicopter or the officers set up on the street and the criminals have a scanner and know where our officers are"
The vast majority of (robbery) criminals are morons. That's why they're criminals. This leaves the numbers even more skewed. I'd recon one-hundred thousand to one.
There is no problem to fix here. This argument about criminals and scanners is bogus and everyone knows it. They just don't want the press knowing what's going on. That's all.
So the question for all of you is simple, do you want the press knowing what the police are doing, or not? Because, let me assure you, if they get this, they'll change other things in the name of "security" that will further deny access.
It's always disconcerting to be on the wrong end of the power/performance curve when it means your computer will have less raw CPU in search of lower power requirements.
However, a change of platform generally means new compilers and fresh code.
I'm not convinced there will be any real-world performance difference when this is factored in.
> Here in Ontario, we have had DSL on the farm, hours away from any city
You're lucky. My childhood home is just outside Bradford - look it up - and has only dialup to this day. The lines were so old that even with the latest modems you get about 25 kb.
" I find that editing structured documents is much faster using plain text, than a WYSIWYG editor"
I assume you mean something like HTML or such. But I also suspect this does not apply to something like a word processor document, where you likely use Word or something similar?
Wikipedia documents are supposed to be word processor documents. Unfortunately, they've been implemented in code. *THAT* is the problem here.
And as one of the Wiki's more prolific authors, I state this from more than a little experience. I currently do my editing offline in Smultron, but I would kill for a GUI editor that let me drag references around, to start with.
Here's what I imagine
I start a new document. It opens a window on the left with a sidebar on the right. I start my research, finding references and images I want to use. I drop them in the sidebar. I start writing. I drag items from the sidebar into the document where I want it. When I save, it asks me to format the sidebar info, adding things that it can't get from the URL (say the publisher for a book).
That would save me hours a document. Right now I use a lash-up in Smultron which is far from ideal.
Imagine that SeaLand did actually have internet, etc. And that someone wanted to set up whatever on it.
Ok, now imagine which is more difficult:
1) a raid on SeaLand that steals a bunch of servers. 2) a raid on RackSpace in a secure downtown building that steals a bunch of servers.
Or for that matter:
1) cutting IP to a platform in the middle of the ocean. 2) cutting IP to a underground facility with multiple high-speed fibres pulled through old manholes by robots?
And when you're done answering that, which do you think is more likely to work
1) getting SeaLand to make a diplomatic request to return your servers? 2) getting the Canadian government to make a diplomatic request to return your servers?
"Your flame bait rant aside....Just read the comments from Apple executives. They're enough to make you smash Apple products you own."
Yeah right, like the time the UK tabloids printed pictures of people exercising and called it torture? I suppose it's not entirely surprising that people on this side of the Pacific would not recognize exercise but the fact is that life at Foxconn is still much better than the alternative for the thousands of people that line up ever time there's a job opening at the factory.
Guess what, most of them love their jobs. I suspect that less than 1% of the readers here has ever been to one of these factories, and likely 0% have ever talked to one of the workers. They don't need your "protection", and any such suggestion is almost certainly based on prejudice.
And while you're feeling all high-and-mighty, a tip of the hat to all the black lung and asbestosis victims in the USA. I realize this might not ring any bells for the average/. reader, who post-dates the original Palm Pilot, but the fact remains that this side of the Pacific is in a very bad position to pull a holier-than-though.
Here in Ontario and based on a mid-use rate (electric heated floor in the kitchen) my all-in rate including taxes was 14.9 cents/kWh.
PV is going in around $3.50 if you don't count metering (net meter as opposed to FIT). Over 25 years you'll get 31000 watt hours for $3500, which comes in at around 12.5 cents/kWh not accounting for cost-of-money.
So I find it difficult to believe rates would ever triple.
Slashdot Mirror
"although I think that at some future point it might be useful to just put at least the smaller stuff in a higher 'parking orbit' for later destruction or recycling. This way you wouldn't lose one vacuum cleaner for each satellite retrieved. And much later down the road, it might be useful to collect bigger units — expended boosters, for example — as raw materials and/or containers"
I don't think you understand the issue. These debris are largely small parts from paint flakes to metal needles. The amount of larger "useful" material is small. Moreover, it's in different orbits. You'd spend more fuel running around getting them than you would save just launching up new mass.
> Theft is theft. That it's easy should not make a difference.
I agree completely.
The old adage is "time is money", so by my measure, if I took time to do something, anything, I should have the ability to make money from it.
This is a *theoretical* issue. We as a society can decide what we choose to value and protect. We used to value land above all, but today we have a wider concept of "work" and "ownership" that includes "ideas". If we, as a society, decide that we believe people should be able to protect ideas, then we protect ideas. Its as simple as that.
> What people are doing here is taking the labor of other individuals and destroying their ability to profit from it.
I disagree completely.
This is *not* a theoretical issue, as dollars are real-world objects. So then instead of simply deciding the outcome, we *have* to measure it. We can pass all the laws we want repealing gravity, but the universe won't care.
So then we need an empirical result. No problem! Movie piracy is rampant, yet the movie industry continues to demonstrate record profits.
Sorry, the real world disagrees with your statement.
How about we just let people take liquids on planes again? You know, without the stupid scanner?
BTW, it clearly doesn't work on toothpaste or any other metal container.
The DoE report you're quoting is widely regarded as bogus within the industry. People complain about their skewed assumptions all the time. For instance, this paper has been making the rounds lately (even here on /. IIRC):
http://qspace.library.queensu.ca/handle/1974/6879
The DoE is the organization developing the "advanced nuclear" and gets funded to do so, so one might suspect that it comes out more positive than other reports. The very report you quote claims that such an "advanced nuclear" plant will cost about $3.50 a Watt. However, at the very same time as they started quoting that number (it's remained unchanged for a few years now), Moody's prepared a long report on the topic, and concluded that the price would be between $5 and $6.
And now we have the answer, the actual price is *over* $6 for the very best case. For comparison, AECL's ACR1000 came in at $8.25. So in other words, it appears likely that the DoE is fudging their numbers.
Then of course one also has to look at the other numbers in the same report. If you multiply the levelized capital cost by the capacity factor you get some estimation of their CAPEX assumptions. For PV, that comes to over $8, when in fact commercial plants are going in today at under $3. If you plug that number into their calculation, the cost of PV comes out to about the same as nuclear. You also have to note that the price they quote for PV and wind hasn't changed for three years, while the CAPEX on PV has come down almost 80% during that period. As the LCoE of PV is basically the CAPEX (look at the calculation) that means that the quoted price should have gone down by the same amount. Yet it remains the same figure that it was in 2009.
But don't take my word for it, do the calculation yourself. Here, I'll explain how to do this yourself, easily:
http://matter2energy.wordpress.com/2012/01/24/your-own-grid-parity-pv-system/
"Maybe the DOE is part of this conspiracy"
Gee, you think?
You are referring to "DOE" as in "Department of Energy", right? Formerly known as the "Atomic Energy Commission"? The organization who's budget is highly dependant on developing nuclear technology? The one who has an interest in promoting development of such technology in order to get a larger budget?
Now who would *possibly* think their numbers might be skewed in favour of "Advanced Nuclear"?
> In the DECADE before those plants are built, solar and wind will be less than HALF the cost they are today
PV yes, wind is likely getting down around the bottom of the curve already though.
That is the real issue though: the price of nuclear has gone *up* since it hit the grid, and will continue to do so as long as U remains a proxy for oil prices (look it up on a graph some time) Wind has come down about five times (or more?) during the same period, and PV about 50 times. PV has come down 70% in the last *two years*.
So the question isn't "good vs. bad", it's more like "in 10 years what will we want in the first place?"
> false, solar panels do degrade, about 0.5% or more per year
False, both in theory and in number. I'm a professional in the PV field, do you really think you know more about this than I do?
The European Solar Test Installation and LEEE/TISO has been running since 1982 and has demonstrated 0.2% degradation. The NREL system is slightly newer (they keep rotating panels out) but has demonstrated similar performance. There is ample real-world data on this. Let me just quote the TISO report, intro:
"In 21 years of service, the Arco Solar ASI 16-2300 modules of the 10 kW TISO plant showed several signs of physical degradation. Yellowing of PVB encapsulant and hot-spots affected the module efficiency. Nevertheless, the results of the indoor performance measurements of all plant modules indicate that the ASI 16-2300 modules are still working in a very satisfactory manner."
the report concludes
"After one year of exposure, in absence of particular defects, all the modules became stable."
That is, after initial "light soak", the panels simply stopped degrading. Entirely. Or to put it in other terms *THE PANELS DO NOT DEGRADE OVER TIME*. The only loss of power events after that time have been due to physical problems:
"Yellowing of encapsulant, delamination and hot-spots are the principal causes of power degradation of ASI 16-2300 modules."
Overall, the measured degradation, *including* mechanical failure, was 0.2% per year. This is considered typical.
You can read the report here:
ANALYSIS OF WEATHERED c-Si PV MODULES - http://www.isaac.supsi.ch/isaac/pubblicazioni/Fotovoltaico/Conferences/Osaka%20(Japan)%20-%203rd%20WPVSEC%20-%20May%202003/s5o-c9-03%20analysis%20of%20weathered%20c-si%20pv%20modules.pdf
It is worth nothing that these are among the very first widely available commercial PV panels - ARCO was the very first PV plant to go into operation. You can read the report here:
We've learned a WHOLE LOT about manufacturing since then, and the expectation is that modern panels will last even longer. And why not? There's only a couple of ingredients in a panel - silicon (cells), silicon (front panel), aluminium (frame), silver (wiring) and a little bit of plastic and copper in the combiner. It is, by any approximation, a window.
But for those of you who aren't yet convinced, more reading:
"The Results of Performance Measurements of Field-aged Crystalline Silicon Photovoltaic Modules "
"The Performance of Crystalline Silicon Photovoltaic Solar Modules after 22 Years of Continuous Outdoor Exposure"
"20 years of life and more: where is the end of life of a PV module"
They all come to the same conclusion, that gradual degradation does not exist, and most failures are "mechanical", notably problems with the back sheets separating.
"maintained nuclear plants work for over 60 years, I've scheduled such maintenance"
No, you haven't. That's because the oldest operational nuclear power plant, Oyster Creek, is only 42 years old, and the longest running in history was Calder Hall at 47 but that closed. So there is no such thing for you to have scheduled.
But that said, given your past statements to the effect that you're a perl/Unix hack who works in IT, you're credibility on this is limited in any event. I have to conclude, as would the "common man", that you have no official dealings with the power industry, let alone nuclear.
"So, once capacity factor is taken into account:
$6.36/watt, divided by 0.9 = $7.06 per watt for nuclear
$3/watt, divided by 0.2 = $15 per watt for solar in Arizona, $20/watt or more in areas with less sun:
You're missing only one thing, the cost of capital. Since PV goes in basically overnight, theres no carrying costs. Nuclear plants take years to build, so you have to write down the interest in the meantime.
Right now that's not a huge effect because of the low interest rates. 20 years ago... it's what really killed nuclear.
> your solar panel will degrade to uselessness in a couple of decades
Incorrect. The very first run of commercial assembly-line solar panels, built in the 1970s, are still working perfectly today. Several systems have operated continually since the 1980s.
There's a misconception that panels slowly degrade over time. They don't. They tend to work very close to their initial standard and then suddenly fail - normally due to physical problems like the back sheet coming off or water working its way in. The chance of any one of these errors occurring is about 0.2% per year.
The average lifetime of a modern panel is likely between 40 and 100 years. No one knows, because we haven't been building them that long.
On the contrary, nuclear plants are generally designed for 25 years, and really do require replacement/refurb at that point. Look up "Darlington power plant" some time.
> Because you can't devote the entire state of Nevada to solar power generation
The area of land needed to supply *all* power in the USA - not just electricity, but EVERY form of power - is about 1/5th the size of the paved area of the USA. There's more than enough rooftop space to do it, already. And that's assuming Alta is bogus and their 25% efficient panel doesn't work...
$14 B / 2.2 BW = $6.36 per Watt
So much for DoE's predictions of $3-3.50 a Watt, which we all know was bogus. Moody's nailed it.
Wow. Nice link!
There's *very* good 4G coverage in Toronto, and I had a chance to try out a recent Samsung 4G phone.
I could not see any difference in performance compared to my 3G phone.
I suspect that latency is indeed better, but I don't use my phone for tasks where that's important. So
"turning off your 4G connection when you don't need the fastest speeds"
It seems silly to pay for a feature that by this logic should simply be turned off all the time.
"People who do bank robberies use scanners"
So do tow truck drivers. What is the comparison in numbers? Ten thousand to one?
"The last thing I want to do is to have the helicopter or the officers set up on the street and the criminals have a scanner and know where our officers are"
The vast majority of (robbery) criminals are morons. That's why they're criminals. This leaves the numbers even more skewed. I'd recon one-hundred thousand to one.
There is no problem to fix here. This argument about criminals and scanners is bogus and everyone knows it. They just don't want the press knowing what's going on. That's all.
So the question for all of you is simple, do you want the press knowing what the police are doing, or not? Because, let me assure you, if they get this, they'll change other things in the name of "security" that will further deny access.
It's always disconcerting to be on the wrong end of the power/performance curve when it means your computer will have less raw CPU in search of lower power requirements.
However, a change of platform generally means new compilers and fresh code.
I'm not convinced there will be any real-world performance difference when this is factored in.
> Here in Ontario, we have had DSL on the farm, hours away from any city
You're lucky. My childhood home is just outside Bradford - look it up - and has only dialup to this day. The lines were so old that even with the latest modems you get about 25 kb.
" I find that editing structured documents is much faster using plain text, than a WYSIWYG editor"
I assume you mean something like HTML or such. But I also suspect this does not apply to something like a word processor document, where you likely use Word or something similar?
Wikipedia documents are supposed to be word processor documents. Unfortunately, they've been implemented in code. *THAT* is the problem here.
And as one of the Wiki's more prolific authors, I state this from more than a little experience. I currently do my editing offline in Smultron, but I would kill for a GUI editor that let me drag references around, to start with.
Here's what I imagine
I start a new document. It opens a window on the left with a sidebar on the right.
I start my research, finding references and images I want to use. I drop them in the sidebar.
I start writing. I drag items from the sidebar into the document where I want it.
When I save, it asks me to format the sidebar info, adding things that it can't get from the URL (say the publisher for a book).
That would save me hours a document. Right now I use a lash-up in Smultron which is far from ideal.
Gebus, we're spending developer cycles on THIS?
How about the ability to drag an URL into the body of an article to automatically create a reference?
Which is more important?
Imagine that SeaLand did actually have internet, etc. And that someone wanted to set up whatever on it.
Ok, now imagine which is more difficult:
1) a raid on SeaLand that steals a bunch of servers.
2) a raid on RackSpace in a secure downtown building that steals a bunch of servers.
Or for that matter:
1) cutting IP to a platform in the middle of the ocean.
2) cutting IP to a underground facility with multiple high-speed fibres pulled through old manholes by robots?
And when you're done answering that, which do you think is more likely to work
1) getting SeaLand to make a diplomatic request to return your servers?
2) getting the Canadian government to make a diplomatic request to return your servers?
Dumbest. Idea. EVAR.
Ummm, I'd recon an airplane wing makes a pretty good Faraday cage.
"They just want the ratings that come with putting "Apple" in a story."
Worked for Greenpiece.
"Your flame bait rant aside....Just read the comments from Apple executives. They're enough to make you smash Apple products you own."
Yeah right, like the time the UK tabloids printed pictures of people exercising and called it torture? I suppose it's not entirely surprising that people on this side of the Pacific would not recognize exercise but the fact is that life at Foxconn is still much better than the alternative for the thousands of people that line up ever time there's a job opening at the factory.
Guess what, most of them love their jobs. I suspect that less than 1% of the readers here has ever been to one of these factories, and likely 0% have ever talked to one of the workers. They don't need your "protection", and any such suggestion is almost certainly based on prejudice.
And while you're feeling all high-and-mighty, a tip of the hat to all the black lung and asbestosis victims in the USA. I realize this might not ring any bells for the average /. reader, who post-dates the original Palm Pilot, but the fact remains that this side of the Pacific is in a very bad position to pull a holier-than-though.
I guess they ran out of lame videos of talking heads in front of non-existent electric cars.
If I wanted to watch someone who has nothing to add and only repeats what the marketing driods tell them, I'd watch Fox.
Seriously /. these videos suck donkey. Spare us.
Here in Ontario and based on a mid-use rate (electric heated floor in the kitchen) my all-in rate including taxes was 14.9 cents/kWh.
PV is going in around $3.50 if you don't count metering (net meter as opposed to FIT). Over 25 years you'll get 31000 watt hours for $3500, which comes in at around 12.5 cents/kWh not accounting for cost-of-money.
So I find it difficult to believe rates would ever triple.