Here is some real data from a financial firm showing wind and solar to be cheaper: https://cleantechnica.com/2016... Do you have any references for your WAG assertions?
People often complain that wind and solar are intermittent whereas nuclear is 100% all the time (as is most coal electricity production). In use, power plants which can't be throttled back for times of low demand are as much a problem as power plants which vary their output during the day. You are right that the grid needs storage. It's crazy hard to match supply to demand when your demand changes all the time and your supply doesn't magically follow the demand.
You're right. No doctor puts "air pollution" as the cause of death. They put, lung disease, heart disease, cancer, etc. Epidemiologists give us the big picture.
If you go to the website which publishes the data, you can find the health impact in Disability Adjusted Life Years (DALY) which is a better than death alone. For instance, Bangladesh has 3000 DALY lost per 100,000 population due to particulates. Very interesting to look at the data: https://www.stateofglobalair.o...
Your comment doesn't make any sense... Here's Wikipedia's entry for Germany: Germany[edit] "Comparison of the levelized cost of electricity for some newly built renewable and fossil-fuel based power stations in euro per kWh (Germany, 2013) In November 2013, the Fraunhofer Institute for Solar Energy Systems ISE assessed the levelised generation costs for newly built power plants in the German electricity sector.[39] PV systems reached LCOE between 0.078 and 0.142 Euro/kWh in the third quarter of 2013, depending on the type of power plant (ground-mounted utility-scale or small rooftop solar PV) and average German insolation of 1000 to 1200 kWh/m per year (GHI). There are no LCOE-figures available for electricity generated by recently built German nuclear power plants as none have been constructed since the late 1980s." Wind is cheaper than hard coal in Germany. PV is only a little more expensive in Germany.
If you don't count the cost of building the plant, solar and wind beat everything hands down since they don't have any ongoing fuel cost and only minimal maintenance cost.
Believe it or not, a lot has changed in 20 years. To get you up to date, here's a good article (with real data) showing solar and wind are cheaper than coal and nuclear: https://cleantechnica.com/2016... Short version for the click impaired: $Cost per MWh: Wind $32, Solar $39, Coal $60, Nuclear $97 These are unsubsidized prices for wind and solar... coal and nuclear are the subsidized prices and do not include the cost of external damage. "A study led by the former head of the Harvard Medical School found that coal cost the US $500 billion per year in extra health and environmental costs — approximately 9/kWh ($90/MWh) to 27/kWh ($270/MWh) more than the price we pay directly. To fool yourself into thinking these are not real costs is to assume that cancer, heart disease, asthma, and early death are not real. The air, water, and climate effects of natural gas are not pretty either. On the nuclear front, the decommissioning and insurance costs of nuclear power — unaccounted for above — would also put nuclear off the chart."
The "blister" is in the main spillway, not the emergency spillway. However, it seems to be holding out fine. The problem is that the emergency spillway isn't really a spillway, it's just the side of a hill which is rapidly eroding from all the water running over it. This undermines the emergency spillway at the top, weakening it, and could lead to failure of this part of the dam. The main dam (highest in the US) seems to be fine for now.
Probably don't need much bandwidth on the human input to the machine. The machine should be smart enough to understand meta directions. Might be useful to have more bandwidth on the machine to human side although visual input is quite high bandwidth and visual processing is quite sophisticated.
We could look at the basic operating frequency of the brain which is up to 40 Hz. Of course, it is a massive parallel processor so even at that speed, it can process quite a bit. Think of the processing needed to run to catch a ball with inputs from eyes, ears (balance) and the entire musculo-skeletal system as well as skin sensors. So, the input side of the equation is capable of handling a large amount of data and processing it. I'm not sure the output side is quite as capable. Running or gymnastics requires quite a bit of control but it seems to me that a lot of that is low level "reflex" processing that may not even make it to the brain. However, I think that it's more important to have human input capability as far as machine interface so it can receive complex data from the machine. I don't think you want to have the brain micro controlling the machine... machines should do that work. Think of a self-driving car. The only input the machine requires is a simple direction such as "take me to work" which doesn't take much bandwidth. The human can then sit back and enjoy the ride.
Most of the comments so far have been personal attacks on Musk. I guess this is par for the low level of discourse here. However, I'd like to see some discussion of his statement. Would a better connection between humans and machines be beneficial? What would be the benefits/ problems? How could this be achieved? Come on, folks, I have seen much better from you in the past.
Don't know why phones need any connectors. My old Nexus 5 phone has wireless charging and four different ways to communicate wirelessly (WiFi, mobile data, NFC, Bluetooth). I never plug anything into the phone. I don't use any plugs or connectors. Why are people still fiddling with plugs?
I would hope that anybody who had developed a new battery technology would be smart enough to file a patent before sending it to anyone. But then again, there are a lot of stupid people.
“My top advice really for anyone who says they’ve got some breakthrough battery technology is please send us a sample cell, okay. Don’t send us PowerPoint, okay, just send us one cell that works with all appropriate caveats, that would be great. That sorts out the nonsense and the claims that aren’t actually true.”
Scammed by Trump again! The problem is that companies are already required to hire Americans first and they have no problem getting around that regulation. It's really difficult to make rules to prevent people from subverting the intention. (I know, back in the good old days I hired a few H1B visa holders... the lawyers just led me through the process... piece of cake.) I expect any new rules will also be full of holes. So, Trump can claim a "HUUUGGE WIN" but nothing will change.
Slashdot Mirror
Here is some real data from a financial firm showing wind and solar to be cheaper:
https://cleantechnica.com/2016...
Do you have any references for your WAG assertions?
This was posted below:
https://cleantechnica.com/2016...
The data is from Lazard Asset Management... a reputable source.
People often complain that wind and solar are intermittent whereas nuclear is 100% all the time (as is most coal electricity production).
In use, power plants which can't be throttled back for times of low demand are as much a problem as power plants which vary their output during the day.
You are right that the grid needs storage. It's crazy hard to match supply to demand when your demand changes all the time and your supply doesn't magically follow the demand.
You're right. No doctor puts "air pollution" as the cause of death.
They put, lung disease, heart disease, cancer, etc.
Epidemiologists give us the big picture.
If you go to the website which publishes the data, you can find the health impact in Disability Adjusted Life Years (DALY) which is a better than death alone.
For instance, Bangladesh has 3000 DALY lost per 100,000 population due to particulates.
Very interesting to look at the data:
https://www.stateofglobalair.o...
Your comment doesn't make any sense...
Here's Wikipedia's entry for Germany:
Germany[edit]
"Comparison of the levelized cost of electricity for some newly built renewable and fossil-fuel based power stations in euro per kWh (Germany, 2013)
In November 2013, the Fraunhofer Institute for Solar Energy Systems ISE assessed the levelised generation costs for newly built power plants in the German electricity sector.[39] PV systems reached LCOE between 0.078 and 0.142 Euro/kWh in the third quarter of 2013, depending on the type of power plant (ground-mounted utility-scale or small rooftop solar PV) and average German insolation of 1000 to 1200 kWh/m per year (GHI). There are no LCOE-figures available for electricity generated by recently built German nuclear power plants as none have been constructed since the late 1980s."
Wind is cheaper than hard coal in Germany. PV is only a little more expensive in Germany.
If you don't count the cost of building the plant, solar and wind beat everything hands down since they don't have any ongoing fuel cost and only minimal maintenance cost.
Believe it or not, a lot has changed in 20 years.
To get you up to date, here's a good article (with real data) showing solar and wind are cheaper than coal and nuclear:
https://cleantechnica.com/2016...
Short version for the click impaired: $Cost per MWh: Wind $32, Solar $39, Coal $60, Nuclear $97
These are unsubsidized prices for wind and solar... coal and nuclear are the subsidized prices and do not include the cost of external damage.
"A study led by the former head of the Harvard Medical School found that coal cost the US $500 billion per year in extra health and environmental costs — approximately 9/kWh ($90/MWh) to 27/kWh ($270/MWh) more than the price we pay directly. To fool yourself into thinking these are not real costs is to assume that cancer, heart disease, asthma, and early death are not real.
The air, water, and climate effects of natural gas are not pretty either. On the nuclear front, the decommissioning and insurance costs of nuclear power — unaccounted for above — would also put nuclear off the chart."
Except the nuclear reactors that Toshiba is building in China... the usual story... delays, cost overruns.
Wind and solar are getting to the point where they'll be cheaper than coal (without subsidies). Nuclear is the most expensive.
Part of Toshiba's problem is the reactors they are building in China.
Nuclear has gone from "too cheap to meter" to "too expensive to matter".
The "blister" is in the main spillway, not the emergency spillway. However, it seems to be holding out fine.
The problem is that the emergency spillway isn't really a spillway, it's just the side of a hill which is rapidly eroding from all the water running over it. This undermines the emergency spillway at the top, weakening it, and could lead to failure of this part of the dam. The main dam (highest in the US) seems to be fine for now.
We all do it every day.
We type on a keyboard and watch the screen for results.
I think Elon is asking for a better interface.
Probably don't need much bandwidth on the human input to the machine. The machine should be smart enough to understand meta directions. Might be useful to have more bandwidth on the machine to human side although visual input is quite high bandwidth and visual processing is quite sophisticated.
We could look at the basic operating frequency of the brain which is up to 40 Hz. Of course, it is a massive parallel processor so even at that speed, it can process quite a bit. Think of the processing needed to run to catch a ball with inputs from eyes, ears (balance) and the entire musculo-skeletal system as well as skin sensors. So, the input side of the equation is capable of handling a large amount of data and processing it.
I'm not sure the output side is quite as capable. Running or gymnastics requires quite a bit of control but it seems to me that a lot of that is low level "reflex" processing that may not even make it to the brain.
However, I think that it's more important to have human input capability as far as machine interface so it can receive complex data from the machine. I don't think you want to have the brain micro controlling the machine... machines should do that work.
Think of a self-driving car. The only input the machine requires is a simple direction such as "take me to work" which doesn't take much bandwidth. The human can then sit back and enjoy the ride.
Most of the comments so far have been personal attacks on Musk. I guess this is par for the low level of discourse here.
However, I'd like to see some discussion of his statement.
Would a better connection between humans and machines be beneficial?
What would be the benefits/ problems?
How could this be achieved?
Come on, folks, I have seen much better from you in the past.
But not everything connected to your phone.
Don't know why phones need any connectors.
My old Nexus 5 phone has wireless charging and four different ways to communicate wirelessly (WiFi, mobile data, NFC, Bluetooth).
I never plug anything into the phone. I don't use any plugs or connectors.
Why are people still fiddling with plugs?
Looks like the Hanford site has had quite a few problems:
Hanford Nuclear Waste Cleanup Plant May Be Too Dangerous
https://www.scientificamerican...
Report finds serious defects at Hanford nuclear waste treatment plant
http://www.latimes.com/nation/...
I would hope that anybody who had developed a new battery technology would be smart enough to file a patent before sending it to anyone.
But then again, there are a lot of stupid people.
“My top advice really for anyone who says they’ve got some breakthrough battery technology is please send us a sample cell, okay. Don’t send us PowerPoint, okay, just send us one cell that works with all appropriate caveats, that would be great. That sorts out the nonsense and the claims that aren’t actually true.”
Scammed by Trump again!
The problem is that companies are already required to hire Americans first and they have no problem getting around that regulation. It's really difficult to make rules to prevent people from subverting the intention. (I know, back in the good old days I hired a few H1B visa holders... the lawyers just led me through the process... piece of cake.) I expect any new rules will also be full of holes.
So, Trump can claim a "HUUUGGE WIN" but nothing will change.
Unfortunately, for some people, this is a problem.
Well, you could just Google this (unless you'd rather have your own facts).
http://fortune.com/2017/01/27/...
http://www.vox.com/policy-and-...
https://www.aol.com/article/ne...
But he does have investments in those countries so he needs to go easy on them.