That's not quite how it works. The problem is peak generation is expensive so adding a lot of capacity at times when it's not needed doesn't help the fact that you still need to generate it later during said peak.
Now, if you could store the solar power generated at noon and use that later, then you are truly reducing the peak. Using the fossil fuel 'saved' when you generated solar power at noon, to power the peak - has no effect on the peak.
This is the biggest issue facing renewable sources - their intermittent nature. Once we have grid scale power storage ability renewable will vastly outshine fossil fuels in cost and impact. Hydro is the first example of this, but only for localized scales. There's a reason Hoover provides power a big chunk of the southwest's power. It can store the potential energy of water at a height for later use. Hydro can't be expanded much beyond it's current footprint though...and obviously has it's own drawbacks like fish kill/migration blocking.
You're paper is based on the same data. The debunking clearly shows the why what you're saying isn't accurate.
That CO2 and NO radiate heat doesn't make them 'cooling' agents in the way you're trying to imply. It means that they prevent the passage of heat energy, on the outside they radiate heat into space when they are hit by a solar flare. SOME energy does get through and the agents now keep that energy locked up longer because they restrict escaping heat.
ANYTHING hit by a solar flare is going to heat up and then start radiating heat away from itself. CO2 and NO block much of the Suns energy, we'd fry if we had all the energy coming in. That again doesn't make them 'cooling' agents. They are insulators keeping heat on whatever side of the border it currently is. If you pile more blankets on your bed, you get warmer.
That's what we're doing with CO2 in the atmosphere.
Oxygen is lethal in certain concentrations, you know that right?
CO2 is a proven heat trapper, you acknowledge this yes?
By putting more of it into the atmosphere than we take out, the system is changing to have more heat trapping gases in it.
Now perhaps the system can continue to function as it has for recent history (less than 10,000 years) while having millions of years worth of CO2 added to it in just under 200 years, but that would be a pretty brazen thing to assume wouldn't it?
CO2 is not the largest driver of warming. Nobody literate in the science claims it to be. The largest driver as I'm sure you know is water vapor. CO2 is the focus of climate change because it is the single biggest change occurring. We ARE dumping millions of tons more of it in to the air than is being removed.
What drives water vapor concentrations in the air? Ambient temperature.
This is called a feedback loop. The logic is quite simple. Is logic alone enough? Of course not, but studies have shown temperatures rising pretty significantly and quickly during the last 200 years. Are there anomalies like the last 10-15 years? Sure, but after 2 centuries of rapid and increasing warming, assuming that any deviation from that upward rise means it is definitely not anything serious and is going to stop is one heck of a conclusion. One not supported by any evidence.
The world is complex. All those anti-terror laws passed in the US? Mostly being used against non-terrorist criminals.
If they can use all powerful tools expressly against what the tools were approved for use against, then future wielders of said tools have carte blanche ability to decide that what you did yesterday is now a threat to the state.
The US *currently* has 30 states of emergency in effect linky. One still in effect from the 70s!
Freedom also means freedom from gov't intrusion, which is also important for that Safety/Security thing you're concerned about. In the name of Safety/Security the gov't is trying to get backdoors built into all encryption protocols. That decidedly makes you LESS safe and secure.
Having new ice form every year doesn't make a difference if it all melts every year - because when it's melted the ocean is absorbing 10x more heat contributing to the warming. Not all ice is equal. Having 2x as much ice only in the winter isn't the same as having 1x all year long.
Heavy commercial trucks do damage that can't be switched to something else; i.e. the road usage is the same. Buses don't weigh anything near a loaded semi-trailer and the bus wear and tear is net positive because 20-30 cars have been taken off the road.
Oh prices might likely be lower for gasoline, but that doesn't mean they are cheaper. The pollution costs of gas aren't included in the price...
Likewise an electric car might cost more upfront, but when you're paying a quarter the cost per mile for fuel or better yet free if you put in a solar array the costs of ICE's add up quickly. Also no oil changes or other significant maintenance that ICE's have that electrics simply don't have.
While true its a terrible way to plan for something you know is coming. Do you really wait until retirement to fund your 401k?
So oil goes up as supply dwindles. Now you're stuck with having to invent, produce and deploy alternative sources very quickly. That makes it cost a lot more. Now both parts are expensive.
Instead, start putting a little money aside now and doing the R&D required to get to where we have to be. Start switching over BEFORE it becomes absolutely necessary. And no company is going to do this because it isn't profitable over short time scales. It needs the government subsidizing experiments and new technologies over the span of centuries.
Fortunately we can do this without raising costs at all. How? By using the 10 BILLION a year in subsidies we currently give to the big oil companies.
What are you solar fanboiz going to do when the sun burns out?
Switch to another source of electricity? When that happens in 4 BILLION years I suspect nuclear fusion using the most plentiful element in the entire UNIVERSE?
So back to you, what are you going to do when oil runs out in just a century or so?
It actually doesn't happen much at all. Anything in the public domain today is there solely because it was created before Disney and other empires started buying laws that suit their interests.
The laws retroactively apply to most creations so even stuff created 'not that recently' continues to reside under copyright lock and key LONG after it would have originally reverted to public domain status.
To be fair, the merger isn't anti-market or anti-competitive.
The existing monopoly providers already are both of those things so the merger doesn't change it or make it significantly worse. You'll still have the single provider in most of the markets, just now that in more markets its the same provider.
It's of absolutely no value to consumers though so why it should be allowed boggles my mind.
Agile has issues in terms of scale. It is great for small projects, works for Medium then as you get larger it begins to fall apart
This. What I find funny is that it's use is generally the reverse of where it would be most beneficial. A large established mature project would be great for Agile as it can handle the smaller delta's. These are usually in larger companies who won't touch Agile.
Consulting which is generally ground up work on the other hand with major changes loves Agile.
That's NOT why we went to war. We went to war because we were told Saddam was in bed with Alqaida. Then 'weapons of mass destruction' which were originally nukes but could include chemical weapons. So 2nd or 3rd reason offered when the previous didn't pan out.
Why the US would keep secret the very reason we changed our story too really makes you wonder what they were hiding given the lengths they were trying to go to to prove they were 'right' about invading Iraq....
Slashdot Mirror
can be used later
That's not quite how it works. The problem is peak generation is expensive so adding a lot of capacity at times when it's not needed doesn't help the fact that you still need to generate it later during said peak.
Now, if you could store the solar power generated at noon and use that later, then you are truly reducing the peak. Using the fossil fuel 'saved' when you generated solar power at noon, to power the peak - has no effect on the peak.
This is the biggest issue facing renewable sources - their intermittent nature. Once we have grid scale power storage ability renewable will vastly outshine fossil fuels in cost and impact. Hydro is the first example of this, but only for localized scales. There's a reason Hoover provides power a big chunk of the southwest's power. It can store the potential energy of water at a height for later use. Hydro can't be expanded much beyond it's current footprint though...and obviously has it's own drawbacks like fish kill/migration blocking.
wow, so sure of yourself you run away at one of the most common internet grammar mistakes?
You're paper is based on the same data. The debunking clearly shows the why what you're saying isn't accurate.
That CO2 and NO radiate heat doesn't make them 'cooling' agents in the way you're trying to imply. It means that they prevent the passage of heat energy, on the outside they radiate heat into space when they are hit by a solar flare. SOME energy does get through and the agents now keep that energy locked up longer because they restrict escaping heat.
ANYTHING hit by a solar flare is going to heat up and then start radiating heat away from itself. CO2 and NO block much of the Suns energy, we'd fry if we had all the energy coming in. That again doesn't make them 'cooling' agents. They are insulators keeping heat on whatever side of the border it currently is. If you pile more blankets on your bed, you get warmer.
That's what we're doing with CO2 in the atmosphere.
Ignoring that while temp and CO2 swings are normal, the SPEED at which they are happening right now is unprecedented.
Actually, that was debunked last year...from someone not exactly an AGW proponent either...
Oxygen is lethal in certain concentrations, you know that right?
CO2 is a proven heat trapper, you acknowledge this yes?
By putting more of it into the atmosphere than we take out, the system is changing to have more heat trapping gases in it.
Now perhaps the system can continue to function as it has for recent history (less than 10,000 years) while having millions of years worth of CO2 added to it in just under 200 years, but that would be a pretty brazen thing to assume wouldn't it?
CO2 is not the largest driver of warming. Nobody literate in the science claims it to be. The largest driver as I'm sure you know is water vapor. CO2 is the focus of climate change because it is the single biggest change occurring. We ARE dumping millions of tons more of it in to the air than is being removed.
What drives water vapor concentrations in the air? Ambient temperature.
This is called a feedback loop. The logic is quite simple. Is logic alone enough? Of course not, but studies have shown temperatures rising pretty significantly and quickly during the last 200 years. Are there anomalies like the last 10-15 years? Sure, but after 2 centuries of rapid and increasing warming, assuming that any deviation from that upward rise means it is definitely not anything serious and is going to stop is one heck of a conclusion. One not supported by any evidence.
Renewables are cheaper than fossil fuels*
* when you don't take into account 24/7 requirements.
Renewables are cheaper than fossil fuels*
*When you include the pollution costs of fossil fuels.
i.e. until fossil fuels have to pay for the cleanup of the CO2 they are releasing it's simply not a fair comparison for renewable sources.
Greetings! You must be new here :)
The world is complex. All those anti-terror laws passed in the US? Mostly being used against non-terrorist criminals.
If they can use all powerful tools expressly against what the tools were approved for use against, then future wielders of said tools have carte blanche ability to decide that what you did yesterday is now a threat to the state.
The US *currently* has 30 states of emergency in effect linky. One still in effect from the 70s!
Freedom also means freedom from gov't intrusion, which is also important for that Safety/Security thing you're concerned about. In the name of Safety/Security the gov't is trying to get backdoors built into all encryption protocols. That decidedly makes you LESS safe and secure.
Funny, ice levels are at all time lows...
Having new ice form every year doesn't make a difference if it all melts every year - because when it's melted the ocean is absorbing 10x more heat contributing to the warming. Not all ice is equal. Having 2x as much ice only in the winter isn't the same as having 1x all year long.
Great way to help your kids and grandkids...
Heavy commercial trucks do damage that can't be switched to something else; i.e. the road usage is the same. Buses don't weigh anything near a loaded semi-trailer and the bus wear and tear is net positive because 20-30 cars have been taken off the road.
Oh prices might likely be lower for gasoline, but that doesn't mean they are cheaper. The pollution costs of gas aren't included in the price...
Likewise an electric car might cost more upfront, but when you're paying a quarter the cost per mile for fuel or better yet free if you put in a solar array the costs of ICE's add up quickly. Also no oil changes or other significant maintenance that ICE's have that electrics simply don't have.
While true its a terrible way to plan for something you know is coming. Do you really wait until retirement to fund your 401k?
So oil goes up as supply dwindles. Now you're stuck with having to invent, produce and deploy alternative sources very quickly. That makes it cost a lot more. Now both parts are expensive.
Instead, start putting a little money aside now and doing the R&D required to get to where we have to be. Start switching over BEFORE it becomes absolutely necessary. And no company is going to do this because it isn't profitable over short time scales. It needs the government subsidizing experiments and new technologies over the span of centuries.
Fortunately we can do this without raising costs at all. How? By using the 10 BILLION a year in subsidies we currently give to the big oil companies.
What are you solar fanboiz going to do when the sun burns out?
Switch to another source of electricity? When that happens in 4 BILLION years I suspect nuclear fusion using the most plentiful element in the entire UNIVERSE?
So back to you, what are you going to do when oil runs out in just a century or so?
electric cars, public transportation, buses, rail, etc. All are cheaper than individual ICE powered cars.
Noisy environments would render a clicker pretty useless.
It actually doesn't happen much at all. Anything in the public domain today is there solely because it was created before Disney and other empires started buying laws that suit their interests.
The laws retroactively apply to most creations so even stuff created 'not that recently' continues to reside under copyright lock and key LONG after it would have originally reverted to public domain status.
You wouldn't consider paying a small amount more for gigabit? I certainly would.
To be fair, the merger isn't anti-market or anti-competitive.
The existing monopoly providers already are both of those things so the merger doesn't change it or make it significantly worse. You'll still have the single provider in most of the markets, just now that in more markets its the same provider.
It's of absolutely no value to consumers though so why it should be allowed boggles my mind.
Agile has issues in terms of scale. It is great for small projects, works for Medium then as you get larger it begins to fall apart
This. What I find funny is that it's use is generally the reverse of where it would be most beneficial. A large established mature project would be great for Agile as it can handle the smaller delta's. These are usually in larger companies who won't touch Agile.
Consulting which is generally ground up work on the other hand with major changes loves Agile.
We're doing a mix of Agile and Waterfall. I call it Drunken Sailor...it's about as productive.
Seriously the draw of the Nexus 5 was the not quite top line features but HALF the damned price.
So they take that and make the 6 cost double and close to iPhone/Samsung territory?
So much for that...
That's NOT why we went to war. We went to war because we were told Saddam was in bed with Alqaida. Then 'weapons of mass destruction' which were originally nukes but could include chemical weapons. So 2nd or 3rd reason offered when the previous didn't pan out.
Why the US would keep secret the very reason we changed our story too really makes you wonder what they were hiding given the lengths they were trying to go to to prove they were 'right' about invading Iraq....
Skinkworks is where they train the Skanks. Once the Skanks are reeking of funk, they go to the Skunkworks for recycling ;-)