The really expensive solar cells that no one uses anyway aren't renewable.
The fact that plain old silicon solar cells are inefficient doesn't matter. In the larger scheme of things, the only thing that matters is the cost per watt. Efficiency only matters in unique applications that require maximum energy output for a given area, like spacecraft. There's plenty of area for the the rest of us to use conventional silicon.
The "hydrogen economy" is well known by now to be hopelessly inefficient. We don't need hydrogen fuel cells; platinum doesn't matter.
The same goes for ethanol -- it's a total scam, and most of us realize that now.
Absolutely - - - - as long as they stop advertising all plans below 60mbs as "unlimited".
I suspect this is a myth that's being perpetuated by self-righteous nerds. I'm sure there are exceptions, and I'd be happy to be proven wrong, but I haven't seen any such advertising in a LONG time.
Anyone reading Slashdot and who hasn't been living in a cave knows that your cable connection doesn't entitle you to saturate that connection 24/7. Less-technical users MIGHT be more easily mislead, but they're also not the ones torrenting fifty porn DVD ISOs -- oops, I mean Linux distros every day.
So who are these much-talked-about innocent people who have been defrauded?
On the overselling, why should they be allowed to be anything less than totally honest?
I think it's you who's not being totally honest by pretending to be mislead about the overselling, and wishfully pretending your $40/month cable bill entitles you to saturate that connection 24/7.
I've read the Comcast agreement. I've skimmed the Cox agreement. I don't see anywhere where it says you can saturate that connection. I don't even see much advertising that would mislead a less-technical user into thinking that.
Can you cite any actual examples of dishonesty on the part of an ISP?
I read both TFA and Western Digital's press release. There is not one actual number behind any of the claims of "low power". Guys, we do have ways of quantifying power consumption, you know.
The don't want it because they don't know what it can do. It's the same reason we don't have a good national (or even regional) electric train system. Few people have ever seen one, know that they exist, or have any idea of the benefits.
Yep, you can save $18 and year and pay an extra hundred today.
Nice attempt at trolling. Did you miss the part where they point out that 87% of existing stock already meets the 2011 guidelines? Do you have any other objections to efficiency improvements aside from your fabricated imaginary additional hundred-dollar cost? I'm willing to consider your right to waste energy intentionally, but you haven't given me a very good reason to sympathize with your cause.
Sounds great for something like a TV that is only going to be used for 5 years or so anyway these days.
The fact that you think it's okay to toss your consumer electronics in the landfill at that rate speaks volumes.
So why artificially cap everyone's usage because some spoiled brat bought a TV that requires it's own nuclear plant to operate.
No one is proposing an artificial cap, and it's not even going to cost more by any significant amount. Did you even RTFA? According to the article, 87% of existing stock already meets the 2011 guidelines. The new restrictions merely require all manufacturers to meet the same easily-attainable goals for energy efficiency.
What you should be looking for is a way to shut off/cap people that are using excessive amounts of energy first in a brownout so the person that looked at efficiency has a more reliable service.
The first and best step to take should be to adjust energy prices to reflect their true cost, allowing market forces to move things in the right direction. Coal-fired generation doesn't really cost anywhere near a nickel per kWh when you include the externalities (e.g. environmental effects).
Real-time energy pricing (and time-of-use metering schedules) will apply pressure in the right area. These are both coming in many jurisdictions, but changes to utility rates are often tied up in bureaucracy and red tape, so it will take time.
We can tackle that problem in two ways: 1) force power companies to pay to clean up their pollution. 2) Increases taxes so that Government can clean up the pollution.
Improving point-of-use energy efficiency is the third way, and of course we don't have to pick just one. All three are great ideas. Energy producers (and, by proxy, their customers) have been getting a free (well, at least heavily subsidized) ride for too long. EVERYONE pays the costs of pollution from coal-fired generation and for global warming.
Also, why not spend that money on the efficiency of the energy production and distribution instead?
Because point-of-use energy efficiency IS a key component of distribution efficiency. Why should we spend money on production efficiency (whatever that even means) just so you can exercise your assumed right to waste energy?
You'd think that I was stealing my electricity from the government. But I'm not. I'm paying for it out of my own pocket
You pay for some of it, but you're certainly not paying for all of it. Sure, you pay your bill on time, but that doesn't begin to include all the true costs of the energy you consume. Everyone pays for environmental destruction from coal mining, for the mercury contamination from burning that coal, and for global warming.
When the grid is overloaded because turkeys like you are out there exercising their right to waste energy, everyone pays for the rate hikes required to build more infrastructure.
The reason for the proposed change is that lower fuel consumption via fuel efficiency will leave the system underfunded.
Cars too efficient? This imaginary problem would be a good one to have if it ever actually came to be. And it would be easily solved by raising the fuel tax by tiny fractions to compensate, further encouraging higher efficiency.
Technology isn't the answer to all problems, and this complicated, expensive proposal isn't even close.
one megawatt of electricity almost instantaneously" WTF does that mean?
It's poorly written, indeed, but the author is trying to explain that the ramp rate for battery storage is nearly infinite, meaning they can go from 0% to 100% output in a very short time.
No, the main problem is infrastucture. Be it public charging sockets for your Tesla or Chevy Volt, or H being available at your local gas (sic) station.
Those of us who actually drive electrics realize pretty quickly that infrastructure is only perceived as a problem. Electricity is already everywhere, but the reality is that several standard deviations of your charging is done at home.
Don't have a garage, or need to take long trips? That sucks for you, but statistics rather unassailably demonstrate that's not a problem for the other 80 or 90 percent of us. Electrics aren't going to be a 100% solution, but a 90% solution is well within our reach.
For all his purported "experience", John McCain still thinks the Iraq war was a great idea. I'd much prefer to hire the smart guy rather than the guy who thinks he knows everything.
1. Don't let your ego get in the way of learning from your coworkers and from yourself. You're all on the same team, right?
2. Use version control. I don't want to start a war about the best system to use, but if your version control system isn't at least as good as Subversion, use Subversion. There's really no excuse. Subversion is free, it runs on anything you're likely to encounter, and you can create a repository on your local machine if your team can't be bothered to run a server. If you use Windows, TortoiseSVN is a great shell-integrated subversion client.
Batteries are not more energy dense then capacitors.
You're spectacularly incorrect, and it's because you're confusing energy and power.
Power (W) is instantaneous; capacitors definitely can deliver higher power. Briefly.
Energy is power multiplied by time (e.g. Wh). Energy density (actually, let's use the more-precise term specific energy) is a measure of energy storage per unit mass. In this regard chemical batteries are at least an order of magnitude better than the best ultracaps.
I don't see them replacing batteries at all, but augmenting them instead. Batteries are limited in the power they can absorb.
Yes, but the limit isn't especially limiting in practice. Power density is important, but any modern battery with sufficient energy density to be useful in the EV industry has plenty of power density. Some types of lithium cells (let's pick A123 since they're well known) have outrageous power densities (hence their use in power tools where you want high torque) but rather poor energy density, yet their energy density is an order of magnitude better than the best ultracaps.
Round trip energy efficiency for lithium type batteries is already on the order of 90%. Even if your hypothetical ultracap system were 100% efficient, you're only looking at an ~11% improvement. But of course your hypothetical system won't be anywhere near 100% efficient, and the cap voltage is dramatically higher and the discharge curve is different, so you have to account for additional power electronics losses involved in moving the charge back and forth between the battery system. And if you just doubled the complexity of your power electronics, you've added significant cost and weight.
In short, I'm an electric vehicle engineer, and I have yet to see a situation where adding caps makes more sense than adding more cells to the battery.
Slashdot Mirror
To paraphrase TFA:
The really expensive solar cells that no one uses anyway aren't renewable.
The fact that plain old silicon solar cells are inefficient doesn't matter. In the larger scheme of things, the only thing that matters is the cost per watt. Efficiency only matters in unique applications that require maximum energy output for a given area, like spacecraft. There's plenty of area for the the rest of us to use conventional silicon.
The "hydrogen economy" is well known by now to be hopelessly inefficient. We don't need hydrogen fuel cells; platinum doesn't matter.
The same goes for ethanol -- it's a total scam, and most of us realize that now.
Nothing else to see here. Move on.
Hang on a second: That works out to over $69000 per ATM. Do they really have that much cash loaded in each one? I'd be surprised if that's true.
Yeah- having a water pipe that can deliver "1000 gallons a minute" doesn't mean you can actually get, you know, 1000 gallons a minute out of it.
Oh look, everyone. It's the guy I was referring to (in my GP post) who's been reading Slashdot but living in a cave.
Absolutely - - - - as long as they stop advertising all plans below 60mbs as "unlimited".
I suspect this is a myth that's being perpetuated by self-righteous nerds. I'm sure there are exceptions, and I'd be happy to be proven wrong, but I haven't seen any such advertising in a LONG time.
Anyone reading Slashdot and who hasn't been living in a cave knows that your cable connection doesn't entitle you to saturate that connection 24/7. Less-technical users MIGHT be more easily mislead, but they're also not the ones torrenting fifty porn DVD ISOs -- oops, I mean Linux distros every day.
So who are these much-talked-about innocent people who have been defrauded?
On the overselling, why should they be allowed to be anything less than totally honest?
I think it's you who's not being totally honest by pretending to be mislead about the overselling, and wishfully pretending your $40/month cable bill entitles you to saturate that connection 24/7.
I've read the Comcast agreement. I've skimmed the Cox agreement. I don't see anywhere where it says you can saturate that connection. I don't even see much advertising that would mislead a less-technical user into thinking that.
Can you cite any actual examples of dishonesty on the part of an ISP?
Never bet on the guy named "Nowinski". He's never won anything.
I read both TFA and Western Digital's press release. There is not one actual number behind any of the claims of "low power". Guys, we do have ways of quantifying power consumption, you know.
The don't want it because they don't know what it can do. It's the same reason we don't have a good national (or even regional) electric train system. Few people have ever seen one, know that they exist, or have any idea of the benefits.
Imagine a transportation system requiring only a vast amount of viagra and willing men.
We'll need an army of super virile men scoring 'round the clock! I'll do my part.
Well, some of us [work 80-hour weeks] to maintain our quality of life in these wonderful times.
I hate to break it to you, but if you're working 80- or 100-hour weeks, you don't have any quality of life.
Yep, you can save $18 and year and pay an extra hundred today.
Nice attempt at trolling. Did you miss the part where they point out that 87% of existing stock already meets the 2011 guidelines? Do you have any other objections to efficiency improvements aside from your fabricated imaginary additional hundred-dollar cost? I'm willing to consider your right to waste energy intentionally, but you haven't given me a very good reason to sympathize with your cause.
Sounds great for something like a TV that is only going to be used for 5 years or so anyway these days.
The fact that you think it's okay to toss your consumer electronics in the landfill at that rate speaks volumes.
So why artificially cap everyone's usage because some spoiled brat bought a TV that requires it's own nuclear plant to operate.
No one is proposing an artificial cap, and it's not even going to cost more by any significant amount. Did you even RTFA? According to the article, 87% of existing stock already meets the 2011 guidelines. The new restrictions merely require all manufacturers to meet the same easily-attainable goals for energy efficiency.
What you should be looking for is a way to shut off/cap people that are using excessive amounts of energy first in a brownout so the person that looked at efficiency has a more reliable service.
The first and best step to take should be to adjust energy prices to reflect their true cost, allowing market forces to move things in the right direction. Coal-fired generation doesn't really cost anywhere near a nickel per kWh when you include the externalities (e.g. environmental effects).
Real-time energy pricing (and time-of-use metering schedules) will apply pressure in the right area. These are both coming in many jurisdictions, but changes to utility rates are often tied up in bureaucracy and red tape, so it will take time.
We can tackle that problem in two ways: 1) force power companies to pay to clean up their pollution. 2) Increases taxes so that Government can clean up the pollution.
Improving point-of-use energy efficiency is the third way, and of course we don't have to pick just one. All three are great ideas. Energy producers (and, by proxy, their customers) have been getting a free (well, at least heavily subsidized) ride for too long. EVERYONE pays the costs of pollution from coal-fired generation and for global warming.
Also, why not spend that money on the efficiency of the energy production and distribution instead?
Because point-of-use energy efficiency IS a key component of distribution efficiency. Why should we spend money on production efficiency (whatever that even means) just so you can exercise your assumed right to waste energy?
You'd think that I was stealing my electricity from the government. But I'm not. I'm paying for it out of my own pocket
You pay for some of it, but you're certainly not paying for all of it. Sure, you pay your bill on time, but that doesn't begin to include all the true costs of the energy you consume. Everyone pays for environmental destruction from coal mining, for the mercury contamination from burning that coal, and for global warming.
When the grid is overloaded because turkeys like you are out there exercising their right to waste energy, everyone pays for the rate hikes required to build more infrastructure.
When many people believe that the continued success of a large company depends on one individual, his health becomes news.
Seeing that much more people care about "lose" vs. "loose" - I don't think so.
I think you mean many more people.
If the real problem involves electric vehicles, then they could... wait for it... increase taxes on electricity!!
Of course, it's worth pointing out that the problem is NOT an abundance of electric vehicles. That would be yet another GOOD problem to have.
You are absolutely correct -- electricity is already taxed, although the taxes are not presently allocated to the same purposes.
The reason for the proposed change is that lower fuel consumption via fuel efficiency will leave the system underfunded.
Cars too efficient? This imaginary problem would be a good one to have if it ever actually came to be. And it would be easily solved by raising the fuel tax by tiny fractions to compensate, further encouraging higher efficiency.
Technology isn't the answer to all problems, and this complicated, expensive proposal isn't even close.
one megawatt of electricity almost instantaneously" WTF does that mean?
It's poorly written, indeed, but the author is trying to explain that the ramp rate for battery storage is nearly infinite, meaning they can go from 0% to 100% output in a very short time.
No, the main problem is infrastucture. Be it public charging sockets for your Tesla or Chevy Volt, or H being available at your local gas (sic) station.
Those of us who actually drive electrics realize pretty quickly that infrastructure is only perceived as a problem. Electricity is already everywhere, but the reality is that several standard deviations of your charging is done at home.
Don't have a garage, or need to take long trips? That sucks for you, but statistics rather unassailably demonstrate that's not a problem for the other 80 or 90 percent of us. Electrics aren't going to be a 100% solution, but a 90% solution is well within our reach.
I am guessing this guess is only accurate to maybe two orders of magnitude.
...and then...
That claim that I heard is probably off by even more orders of magnitude.
You'd better quit; your stories appear to be losing accuracy over time, and I fear for your next one.
For all his purported "experience", John McCain still thinks the Iraq war was a great idea. I'd much prefer to hire the smart guy rather than the guy who thinks he knows everything.
1. Don't let your ego get in the way of learning from your coworkers and from yourself. You're all on the same team, right?
2. Use version control. I don't want to start a war about the best system to use, but if your version control system isn't at least as good as Subversion, use Subversion. There's really no excuse. Subversion is free, it runs on anything you're likely to encounter, and you can create a repository on your local machine if your team can't be bothered to run a server. If you use Windows, TortoiseSVN is a great shell-integrated subversion client.
Batteries are not more energy dense then capacitors.
You're spectacularly incorrect, and it's because you're confusing energy and power.
Power (W) is instantaneous; capacitors definitely can deliver higher power. Briefly.
Energy is power multiplied by time (e.g. Wh). Energy density (actually, let's use the more-precise term specific energy) is a measure of energy storage per unit mass. In this regard chemical batteries are at least an order of magnitude better than the best ultracaps.
I don't see them replacing batteries at all, but augmenting them instead. Batteries are limited in the power they can absorb.
Yes, but the limit isn't especially limiting in practice. Power density is important, but any modern battery with sufficient energy density to be useful in the EV industry has plenty of power density. Some types of lithium cells (let's pick A123 since they're well known) have outrageous power densities (hence their use in power tools where you want high torque) but rather poor energy density, yet their energy density is an order of magnitude better than the best ultracaps.
Round trip energy efficiency for lithium type batteries is already on the order of 90%. Even if your hypothetical ultracap system were 100% efficient, you're only looking at an ~11% improvement. But of course your hypothetical system won't be anywhere near 100% efficient, and the cap voltage is dramatically higher and the discharge curve is different, so you have to account for additional power electronics losses involved in moving the charge back and forth between the battery system. And if you just doubled the complexity of your power electronics, you've added significant cost and weight.
In short, I'm an electric vehicle engineer, and I have yet to see a situation where adding caps makes more sense than adding more cells to the battery.