The utility can't give them back the power generated ten hours earlier, because there is no effective way to store power at utility scale.
As usual, there's a grain of truth in here, but, since realtime peak solar output is still not within TWO ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE of demand, this is still a bullshit argument.
...to put those big scary "$4.4 billion" numbers in there without context. It sounds like a lot of money (especially to people unfamiliar with the industry) but that number is the retail value of approximately 18 months of electrical generation for units 2 & 3 at San Onofre.
$608 million decommissioning seem less ridiculous, this still seems much more expensive then it ought to be.
For perspective, that plant likely produced on the order of a quarter-million dollars worth of electricity EVERY HOUR, round the clock, for decades, so $608 million is not a very exciting figure, even if true.
This is actually great news. It means that decommissioning only costs the equivalent of 3 months worth of full-production output--a bargain.
What do you imagine a replacement battery pack will cost for a school bus?
On the order of $0.10/Wh, by the time it matters. Modern Li cells are outlasting anyone's expectations in traction applications; they're not the weak link that you imply.
It doesn't make any sense to optimize for outlier trips like that, unless you have money to burn. Rather, you keep a few diesel buses around.
PV is better (economically, for efficiency, and for the grid) when it's stationary and grid-connected, and range extenders negate the benefits of the simple electric powertrain (bringing back ICE maintenance). A "range extended" EV embodies the complexity of both a full-power EV and a convention internal combustion powetrain.
It doesn't need any "help with range". Fleet vehicles (like school buses) are already a near-ideal case for electrification; they follow well established routes and schedules. Range is either sufficient or not, and once sufficient, the marginal value of additional range is zero.
Basically you have to get charging time down below about 10 minutes for at least 200 miles of range.
That's only required to make electrics practical for the last 3-4% of transportation needs. Several standard deviations of our driving can be met with existing technology. Overnight charging at 6-12 kW is ideal because it's cheapest, and it happens while you do other things (like sleep), and it's when the grid is the cleanest.
The report makes it pretty clear that saving the Columbia was about as realistic as saving the Titanic.
I'm glad you weren't in charge of Apollo 13. : ) Seriously, I think your interpretation is unusual (or maybe we're talking about different documents). The CAIB pretty clearly says the scenarious were plausible. Obviously risky, with no guarantee of success, but not impossible. I can't see how you got from that to "certain doom".
The Columbia crew were dead men walking the moment the foam damaged the tiles. Columba was a wreck the moment the foam caused the damage. She would never reach earth's surface whole once she entered space.
This claim was solidly refuted in the official accident investigation report, which explores parallel scenarios--one for rescue, and another for improvised repair while on orbit.
The report is a fascinating read, by the way, and highly recommended. It manages to be satisfyingly technical without going over the head of a typical engineer or even lay person.
More is better to a point, but productivity does not scale linearly with the number of lines of code displayed simultaneously.
I'm open minded, but unconvinced that it's especially better than two (or three) modest size displays. I'd be interested to hear from others who have tried both approaches (enormous display vs. a few smaller ones).
other energy sources are already cheaper [than nuclear]
That depends on how you account for the strip mining, fracking, CO2 and things like radiation (from coal plants) spewing into the atmosphere (which we all share). There aren't low carbon sources that are both cheaper than nuclear and suitable for base load.
safety is still somewhat lacking (accidents, like Fukushima, still happen)
And for perspective, coal plants emit more radiation when working normally, 24x7.
Safer and cheaper nuclear reactors should be possible.
Are possible, and much safer technology (than was in place at any of the high-profile incidents) exists today.
Killing someone is cheaper than letting them rot for life in prison, feeding them, housing them, guarding them and perhaps even risking parole at some later date.
Your statement confirms that Americans care only about one thing - money.
Actually, it also confirms that the GP is wrong about the financial arguments, since it's exceedingly well documented that executing prisoners costs about an order of magnitude more than the alternative.
While I'm all for squishing child molesters feet first using a steam roller in the lowest gear [...]
Pedophiles are mentally ill, and while it's common to equate mental illness with criminality, I don't understand it. Pedophiles find children attractive, and they need to be stopped, but this is a social problem and not a criminal one.
The rest of us who don't "molest" children don't refrain because we're simply in better control of our urges, it's that we don't find children sexually attractive.
What is the 30 year estimate to run an oil/coal plant? Don't forget fuel costs and negative externalities like water pollution from strip mining and fracking. You don't seem to want to talk about that
This was a discussion about the costs of solar thermal vs. solar photovoltaic, so you're correct: I'm not much interested in your oil/coal tangent. You're way off topic.
Slashdot Mirror
The utility can't give them back the power generated ten hours earlier, because there is no effective way to store power at utility scale.
As usual, there's a grain of truth in here, but, since realtime peak solar output is still not within TWO ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE of demand, this is still a bullshit argument.
"Too cheap to meter" is the best example of a straw man argument I've ever heard. Absolutely no one believes nuclear energy is too cheap to meter.
...to put those big scary "$4.4 billion" numbers in there without context. It sounds like a lot of money (especially to people unfamiliar with the industry) but that number is the retail value of approximately 18 months of electrical generation for units 2 & 3 at San Onofre.
$608 million decommissioning seem less ridiculous, this still seems much more expensive then it ought to be.
For perspective, that plant likely produced on the order of a quarter-million dollars worth of electricity EVERY HOUR, round the clock, for decades, so $608 million is not a very exciting figure, even if true.
This is actually great news. It means that decommissioning only costs the equivalent of 3 months worth of full-production output--a bargain.
Rowe was constructed before there were widespread protests against nuclear power, and it was still too expensive.
If 1960s technology wasn't good enough, we may as well give up. That's what I always say.
All it would take is one kid getting sick
Urine is sterile. It literally can't make you sick at the concentrations in question. Case dismissed.
it will lose or gain only one second every 300 million years
Can't they just leave a note to the future people to click it forward/back at the right time?
If the clock in question supports 9-digit years, they could even set an alarm...
You could have a secret number on a scratch card that needs to be transmitted to the phone for it to "suicide".
If the premise is that I can't even avoid losing my phone, how am I, as its sole curator, expected to keep track of this number?
Americans currently spend around $580 million replacing stolen phones each year and $4.8 billion paying for handset insurance.
At that factor of 8, folks, is why insurance is a bad investment. Americans could save $4.3B per year by not buying insurance with a poor ROI.
What do you imagine a replacement battery pack will cost for a school bus?
On the order of $0.10/Wh, by the time it matters. Modern Li cells are outlasting anyone's expectations in traction applications; they're not the weak link that you imply.
Unless you want to take kids on a field trip...
It doesn't make any sense to optimize for outlier trips like that, unless you have money to burn. Rather, you keep a few diesel buses around.
PV is better (economically, for efficiency, and for the grid) when it's stationary and grid-connected, and range extenders negate the benefits of the simple electric powertrain (bringing back ICE maintenance). A "range extended" EV embodies the complexity of both a full-power EV and a convention internal combustion powetrain.
PV could be installed, to also help with range
It doesn't need any "help with range". Fleet vehicles (like school buses) are already a near-ideal case for electrification; they follow well established routes and schedules. Range is either sufficient or not, and once sufficient, the marginal value of additional range is zero.
Basically you have to get charging time down below about 10 minutes for at least 200 miles of range.
That's only required to make electrics practical for the last 3-4% of transportation needs. Several standard deviations of our driving can be met with existing technology. Overnight charging at 6-12 kW is ideal because it's cheapest, and it happens while you do other things (like sleep), and it's when the grid is the cleanest.
The report makes it pretty clear that saving the Columbia was about as realistic as saving the Titanic.
I'm glad you weren't in charge of Apollo 13. : ) Seriously, I think your interpretation is unusual (or maybe we're talking about different documents). The CAIB pretty clearly says the scenarious were plausible. Obviously risky, with no guarantee of success, but not impossible. I can't see how you got from that to "certain doom".
The Columbia crew were dead men walking the moment the foam damaged the tiles. Columba was a wreck the moment the foam caused the damage. She would never reach earth's surface whole once she entered space.
This claim was solidly refuted in the official accident investigation report, which explores parallel scenarios--one for rescue, and another for improvised repair while on orbit.
The report is a fascinating read, by the way, and highly recommended. It manages to be satisfyingly technical without going over the head of a typical engineer or even lay person.
Winking is great, but I want the hut hut.
More is better to a point, but productivity does not scale linearly with the number of lines of code displayed simultaneously.
I'm open minded, but unconvinced that it's especially better than two (or three) modest size displays. I'd be interested to hear from others who have tried both approaches (enormous display vs. a few smaller ones).
At some point, another train collided with the derailed train
I'm sending in more trains!
I assume the technology is for export, because line of sight in China should be good for, oh, about twenty feet or so.
other energy sources are already cheaper [than nuclear]
That depends on how you account for the strip mining, fracking, CO2 and things like radiation (from coal plants) spewing into the atmosphere (which we all share). There aren't low carbon sources that are both cheaper than nuclear and suitable for base load.
safety is still somewhat lacking (accidents, like Fukushima, still happen)
And for perspective, coal plants emit more radiation when working normally, 24x7.
Safer and cheaper nuclear reactors should be possible.
Are possible, and much safer technology (than was in place at any of the high-profile incidents) exists today.
Killing someone is cheaper than letting them rot for life in prison, feeding them, housing them, guarding them and perhaps even risking parole at some later date.
Your statement confirms that Americans care only about one thing - money.
Actually, it also confirms that the GP is wrong about the financial arguments, since it's exceedingly well documented that executing prisoners costs about an order of magnitude more than the alternative.
We basically flipped the sh#t sandwich over and are eating it from the other side now.
Alas, it was an open-faced sandwich.
While I'm all for squishing child molesters feet first using a steam roller in the lowest gear [...]
Pedophiles are mentally ill, and while it's common to equate mental illness with criminality, I don't understand it. Pedophiles find children attractive, and they need to be stopped, but this is a social problem and not a criminal one.
The rest of us who don't "molest" children don't refrain because we're simply in better control of our urges, it's that we don't find children sexually attractive.
Micro-USB, while ubiquitous, is rather fragile and has orientation.
Agreed. Mini-USB, on the other hand, is way more robust, and is not significantly larger.
What is the 30 year estimate to run an oil/coal plant? Don't forget fuel costs and negative externalities like water pollution from strip mining and fracking. You don't seem to want to talk about that
This was a discussion about the costs of solar thermal vs. solar photovoltaic, so you're correct: I'm not much interested in your oil/coal tangent. You're way off topic.