Um, it is reality. When your fuel is free and plentiful, efficiency is less of a concern. That's basic economics. To get more power I can increase the efficiency of my panels OR I can just install more panels of the lower efficiency.
Since very very few things in history have had this concept its understandable to look at it with the frame of reference of fossil fuels. You need X amount of fuel for operation and that costs money.
That simply isn't the case with solar or wind. The 'fuel' providing your electricity is free and plentiful. What renewable sources aren't yet are, 1. storable 2. continuous (see 1), and 3. dense enough.
#2 will be solved when we have better electricity/power storage ability.
#3 is solved both by new tech with higher efficiency or simply adding more capacity (and we have LOTS of places to add more capacity)
Yes it's theory, but it's based on sound principles. I'm curious what about this you disagree with?
Still not seeing how you can not have service at night but have it when you want it in the morning? Turning on an entire country at 5am isn't a good idea.
Without continuous service, you're left with either batteries for everything or local generators running on mostly fossil fuels. That's less efficient on any number of fronts.
It's an interesting question. In theory it's similar to ski resorts that set off man induced avalanches. They fire charges into the upper slopes to bring down build up so it doesn't happen uncontrolled when people are in the area.
That said, those are pretty remote areas without buildings below:)
The liability alone would be mind boggling. "Boss, I triggered a 3.5, but a 7.0 happened....".
What if you could make the San Andreas fault frictionless? Probably good for SoCal, but Seattle might not like the result. The entire planet is a moving jigsaw puzzle and changing one section is bound to cause new 'features' in others.
Amazingly it depends on the height of the building. Shorter 'boxes' can ride out quakes pretty well being super rigid. Super tall need the flexibility. The problem is the 9-15 story buildings that aren't tall enough for the flexibility to help but too big to be rigid against the shaking.
The 'instrumentation' idea is right on. Where in the crust do you put them? since the surface of the fault is a 3 dimensional thing, you can't go straight down from the surface. And of course that instrumentation likely gets crushed during any movement:)
Another factor we don't know anything about is the forces driving the tectonics. Sure we know the concepts but nothing of the details of what I assume to be magma/whatever pushing India north. At what speed? What's the friction against the bottom of the Indian subcontinent? Hell what shape are the bottoms of continents:)
Best guess we're more limited in just listening and trying to deduce rather than being able to actively measure in the relevant areas anytime soon.
How much does sunshine cost again? Or the blowing wind?
Don't confuse infrastructure costs with fuel costs.
Solar has a large upfront cost buy then costs almost zero to operate in a residential scenario. Not quite that good in a utility scenario buy still better than coal. It's still very new though so needs some subsidies to get people to invest for that initial outlay.
and doesn't produce CO2....how much does that cost for coal?
Domestic use fit industrialization. Yes that's true. It doesn't then follow that we shouldn't have increased domestic use unless you're saying curtailing domestic usage of electricity....
Lies, damned lies and statistics - yes I'm familiar with them. The small sample size is certainly something but the actual occurrences show something other than 1/100. To claim that 1/100 actually meant 1/70 isn't a tenable position.
"An internal NASA risk assessment study (conducted by the Shuttle Program Safety and Mission Assurance Office at Johnson Space Center) released in late 2010 or early 2011 concluded that the agency had seriously underestimated the level of risk involved in operating the Shuttle. The report assessed that there was a 1 in 9 chance of a catastrophic disaster during the first nine flights of the Shuttle but that safety improvements had later improved the risk ratio to 1 in 90"
1 in 9? ouch. rectified, but not nearly as safe as 1/100.
What you're saying works when you're connected in real time to the power generation systems as we are today. The demand/production curves require active management.
That won't nearly as significant an issue with renewable sources because a renewable system runs off the energy storage, not the energy production systems. There's an extra layer there smoothing out the differences.
eg domestic use was introduced to fill in a lack of other demand out of work hours
So 'domestic' should go without electricity? domestic use fit a need of the industrial revolution...it also massively increased the standard of living. That's a *good* thing by any measure. There are certainly side effects we need to work on mitigating, but you still seem to be saying people shouldn't be using electricity...
“In 2015, BP reached a final settlement with the US government and five state governments totalling $20.8 billion. However, only $5.5 billion of this is in the form of a non-tax-deductible penalty, and the remainder can be written off by BP,”
Just wanted to make sure all the nay sayers understand...BP got a tax break for polluting the Gulf of Mexico...
Slashdot Mirror
Basic economics. Which apparently seems like magic to you.
Coal and oil are decidedly not free. Certainly not priced correctly but far from free.
Um, it is reality. When your fuel is free and plentiful, efficiency is less of a concern. That's basic economics. To get more power I can increase the efficiency of my panels OR I can just install more panels of the lower efficiency.
Since very very few things in history have had this concept its understandable to look at it with the frame of reference of fossil fuels. You need X amount of fuel for operation and that costs money.
That simply isn't the case with solar or wind. The 'fuel' providing your electricity is free and plentiful. What renewable sources aren't yet are, 1. storable 2. continuous (see 1), and 3. dense enough.
#2 will be solved when we have better electricity/power storage ability.
#3 is solved both by new tech with higher efficiency or simply adding more capacity (and we have LOTS of places to add more capacity)
Yes it's theory, but it's based on sound principles. I'm curious what about this you disagree with?
Still not seeing how you can not have service at night but have it when you want it in the morning? Turning on an entire country at 5am isn't a good idea.
Without continuous service, you're left with either batteries for everything or local generators running on mostly fossil fuels. That's less efficient on any number of fronts.
Hey they want "You won't be surprised to know that we want something that fits the mission"
It's an arctic mission and one of the suggestions was "RRS It's bloody cold here"
Done and Done.
It's an interesting question. In theory it's similar to ski resorts that set off man induced avalanches. They fire charges into the upper slopes to bring down build up so it doesn't happen uncontrolled when people are in the area.
:)
That said, those are pretty remote areas without buildings below
The liability alone would be mind boggling. "Boss, I triggered a 3.5, but a 7.0 happened....".
What if you could make the San Andreas fault frictionless? Probably good for SoCal, but Seattle might not like the result. The entire planet is a moving jigsaw puzzle and changing one section is bound to cause new 'features' in others.
Amazingly it depends on the height of the building. Shorter 'boxes' can ride out quakes pretty well being super rigid. Super tall need the flexibility. The problem is the 9-15 story buildings that aren't tall enough for the flexibility to help but too big to be rigid against the shaking.
:(
I work in a 12 story
Tell that to the victims of landslides. The majority of deaths in US quakes are building related, but not in many other places.
The 'instrumentation' idea is right on. Where in the crust do you put them? since the surface of the fault is a 3 dimensional thing, you can't go straight down from the surface. And of course that instrumentation likely gets crushed during any movement :)
:)
Another factor we don't know anything about is the forces driving the tectonics. Sure we know the concepts but nothing of the details of what I assume to be magma/whatever pushing India north. At what speed? What's the friction against the bottom of the Indian subcontinent? Hell what shape are the bottoms of continents
Best guess we're more limited in just listening and trying to deduce rather than being able to actively measure in the relevant areas anytime soon.
How much does sunshine cost again? Or the blowing wind?
Don't confuse infrastructure costs with fuel costs.
Solar has a large upfront cost buy then costs almost zero to operate in a residential scenario. Not quite that good in a utility scenario buy still better than coal. It's still very new though so needs some subsidies to get people to invest for that initial outlay.
and doesn't produce CO2....how much does that cost for coal?
Says the person Refusing to accept that 1/100 is different than 1/70.
Yes and the poster is saying that we should rethink the entire usage model...I.e. You shouldn't have that service in the middle of the night.
loss is less of a concern when your fuel is free. See 50s cars getting 12 mpg. When fuel is cheap and plentiful, efficiency is a very small concern.
Renewables get really close to quite literally 'free' fuel.
In hydro your 'fuel' storage is somewhat limited, but in an electrical system you can add more storage capacity.
Domestic use fit industrialization. Yes that's true. It doesn't then follow that we shouldn't have increased domestic use unless you're saying curtailing domestic usage of electricity....
Whatever. Equating a shuttle launch with a coin flip. Good luck with that.
Lies, damned lies and statistics - yes I'm familiar with them. The small sample size is certainly something but the actual occurrences show something other than 1/100. To claim that 1/100 actually meant 1/70 isn't a tenable position.
linky
"An internal NASA risk assessment study (conducted by the Shuttle Program Safety and Mission Assurance Office at Johnson Space Center) released in late 2010 or early 2011 concluded that the agency had seriously underestimated the level of risk involved in operating the Shuttle. The report assessed that there was a 1 in 9 chance of a catastrophic disaster during the first nine flights of the Shuttle but that safety improvements had later improved the risk ratio to 1 in 90"
1 in 9? ouch. rectified, but not nearly as safe as 1/100.
even if you agree with the 1/100, 1/70 is 30% worse. That's a pretty damned significant difference.
And of course that's if 1/100 accounted for everything or failures within the known systems.
What you're saying works when you're connected in real time to the power generation systems as we are today. The demand/production curves require active management.
That won't nearly as significant an issue with renewable sources because a renewable system runs off the energy storage, not the energy production systems. There's an extra layer there smoothing out the differences.
eg domestic use was introduced to fill in a lack of other demand out of work hours
So 'domestic' should go without electricity? domestic use fit a need of the industrial revolution...it also massively increased the standard of living. That's a *good* thing by any measure. There are certainly side effects we need to work on mitigating, but you still seem to be saying people shouldn't be using electricity...
Different side of the same coin
The point still stands. It wasn't as 'safe' as it was thought to be.
And in any case I regard 'baseload' as purely an artefact of how we have become used to running electricity systems...
So you're saying we should go back to 3rd world levels of reliability? Now there's a winning solution!
from the link:
“In 2015, BP reached a final settlement with the US government and five state governments totalling $20.8 billion. However, only $5.5 billion of this is in the form of a non-tax-deductible penalty, and the remainder can be written off by BP,”
Just wanted to make sure all the nay sayers understand...BP got a tax break for polluting the Gulf of Mexico...
The space shuttle was considered pretty safe...until the Columbia disaster happened pointed out it's massive design flaw.
Past performance is highly suspect in terms of future results.
Coal WILL cause climate change and massive upheaval. Nuclear *might* when something goes wrong.
That doesn't make nuclear a GOOD choice by any measure, but it may be the only one we can deal with for the moment.
What's your solution?