No, they couldn't. You can't just turn power plants off.
Because exporting it to Arizona with a negative price was cheaper!
The price is the same; that's how fungible markets work. Maybe you can take a few minutes to understand how and why electricity prices go negative before wasting any more of our time...
The is no "grid overload", that is a stupid term of the article writer.
No, it's a real thing. You just don't know what you're talking about.
Your example wiki article has nothing to do with an "overload" that could not be handled, facepalm.
It's a perfect example of a local overload causing a failure cascade resulting in widespread power loss. An excess of power input destabilizes the grid and the whole thing comes crashing down. The key is to keep the power input and power consumption balanced, which in that particular example didn't happen because of a software glitch. =Smidge=
Of course California could curtail their own production. Facepalm. They did not want to, because despite the negative price, that was the cheapest option.
Production is not controlled by the state. When we talk about "California" and "Arizona" we are not referring to these areas as governmental regions, but only as geographical ones.
Of course generation companies in California reduced their output if they were able to. They, too, get paid their negative electrical rates. The problem is all of the power sources throughout the California region could not be collectively reduced enough to prevent grid overloading, so they had to cooperate with a neighboring region to distribute the excess power.
Maybe you don't understand what "overloaded" means, or what happens if the power grid becomes overloaded?
If you put X megawatts into the grid, it will consume/dissipate X megawatts. It has to, because energy must be conserved. So what exactly happens to that energy when you put in more than is consumed?
Short answer is, voltage starts to increase, which in turn drives more current through whatever is completing the circuit. The tolerance is just a few percent and there's only a very slim safety margin on top of that (if any, as the age of the grid might mean more load has been connected to some parts than it was originally designed for).
So if you overload it badly enough - put in too much power - you start to trip breakers. That can be catastrophically bad, since a tripping breaker at a substation can suddenly detach tens or hundreds of megawatts of load from a grid system that is already producing too much power. The result is a cascade of failures right up the hierarchy that results in widespread blackouts.
When you say something stupid like "in fact the energy is just transported away with exactly that grid" you're not understanding that this is only possible because Arizona has decreased their own generation, giving that energy a place to go.
It's important that demand and generation be closely matched at all times. California produces a surplus of energy and needs to export it or their power grid (as a whole) will overload, but California cannot curtail their own generation enough to match their own demand.
This whole thing works because Arizona is decreasing their own power output, getting the total generation between the two states to match total demand between the two states. If they didn't cooperate, there would be no place to export the power to and the grid (as a whole) would overload. =Smidge=
Even at "End of life" they will likely still work, just not as well. Before recycling I'd think repurposing would be a fairly large market.
For a fraction of the price you can get a solar panel that's maybe 75% of its rated output. That's still usable power, and perhaps a good choice for some low-importance applications. =Smidge=
They said I was crazy to dump my life savings into POGs in the late 90's, but that fad will come steamrolling back any day now and I'll be king of the playground again!
Do some tinkering with that math and compute how many amps that would be with a typical household electrical service voltage.
Counterpoint 1: Consider how many hours a day is your vehicle is sitting unused, and that virtually every moment of that could potentially be used for charging.
Counterpoint 2: The basic "level 2" charging rate available at virtually all private homes and businesses charges at a rate of about 25 miles per hour, and completes a full charge in 4 hours or less.
but electricity does not work for things like powering trains
Counterpoint 1: Virtually all light rail in my area is "3rd rail" electric, and pretty much every subway is as well. There is also older, overhead electric type.
Counterpoint 2: Trains are about the easiest to electrify, adding "battery cars" strikes me as quite feasible.
long haul trucking, aircraft, watercraft, and so much more
Counterpoint 1: The vast majority of trucking is not long-haul.
Counterpoint 2: Why would it be necessary to replace *every* mode of transportation with a single technology? How does it affect the benefits of electrifying personal vehicles if it's currently not practical to make battery electric aircraft?
Well, for one it might be helpful if idiot tree huggers stop protesting oil pipelines. We need that oil.
Counterpoint 1: Basically none of the oil in the recently contested Keystone XL pipeline would end up being used in the US. The pipeline is bullshit.
Counterpoint 2: Yes, we will need petroleum for lots of things for the foreseeable future... all the more reason to try and NOT burn it unless we absolutely have to.
These idiot tree huggers are destroying the environment.
Counterpoint: Your derogatory characterization and pigeonholing of people who can see the forest for the trees (if you'll allow the expression) is both inaccurate and childish. =Smidge=
The first amendment prevents government officials from prohibiting or preventing speech. It does not apply to private organizations or businesses like Twitter, who are free (at least constitutionally) to block/ban anyone or delete any message, for any reason. The government cannot prevent you from expressing your views or opinions, but nobody is obliged to facilitate you either.
Twitter as a business is not a government communications platform, but we have a case where a government official is blocking users from equal access to what has been declared as official government communications... even if that communication is via a private third party. =Smidge=
On the other hand, as a government official using what is arguably an official government platform to do that communicating, it could be that blocking a Twitter user is a form of censorship.
At the very least, blocked users do not show up on your list of followers, so perhaps a case could be made that by blocking @ewhac the President is suppressing your public visibility and is therefore censoring you... a violation the 1st amendment.
IANAL though. I just don't see it as quite that clear-cut. =Smidge=
I would argue that the problem isn't too many people going to college, it's too many people going to college for the wrong reasons.
You need to have a plan. Either you're working to get a degree that opens up opportunities you're interested in pursuing, or you have some other plan to make ends meet and you're going for a degree out of personal interest and fulfillment.
Both are fine IMHO, but in either case you have a plan.
It strikes me that a lot of students attend college because they feel it's necessary, and take classes/get degrees in subjects with no clear plan to leverage that education for better careers. Instead, it's treated like another 4 years of high school. =Smidge=
You could probably manage it if you do it slow enough that it doesn't cause a panic sell, and/or do it through a number of shell accounts so it doesn't look too suspicious.
Once you've unloaded a few hundred BTC, try to dump the rest and cause a market crash, then buy back what you sold originally for a fraction of the price and wait for the next bubble. =Smidge=
You're right, you said "super capacitor plates" which is not entirely the same thing, but the same principle still applies: For high tech applications, purity is critical, and mineral coal is not pure.
Do you ever abstain from trying to torpedo a discussion you're losing by calling the other person a retard? =Smidge=
You don't need coal to make steel. Coke (which is made from coal) is the traditional fuel, but you can also use natural gas... and there's no reason natural gas needs to come from a non-renewable source.
In fact all you really need is a high purity source of carbon. =Smidge=
Yes, they CAN do it, but there is no reason to do it.
And mineral coal is not that "close" - it contains a lot of impurities (eg heavy metals, sulfur) which makes it unsuitable for water filtration and battery electrodes in your list of examples.
We don't need coal anymore. When - not if - all the coal is gone, we have it covered. =Smidge=
Activated CHARcoal, which is not made from mined coal but from organic matter than is run through a gassifier to remove all the volatile compounds and leave the carbon.
You do not need mineral coal for this. There are vanishingly few things that require mineral coal these days. =Smidge=
Speaking of not being able to read; The DOJ did not say the videos were illegal. The DOJ ordered UC Berkeley to make them compliant with ADA standards.
The university decided to remove the media because it was not worth the trouble and cost of fighting a lawsuit over compliance, and the cost of compliance was too high.
There was - is - absolutely nothing wrong with the videos themselves. The word "illegal" does not apply to any part of this situation. Big fuckin' difference. =Smidge=
Electric cars are a rich person's toy. Is the price difference less than a lifetime's worth of gas yet?
Last I checked - admittedly over five years ago - the premium cost of an electric vehicle (cost above a comparable gasoline vehicle in the same size and class) was paid for by fuel savings if you went with a least option. That is, the monthly lease cost for an EV minus the fuel cost savings was favorable to the monthly cost of leasing a comparable gasoline car.
Whether or not it's economical, however, depends on the cost of gas and how much you drive. When (not if) the price of gas goes back up to where it was circa 2012 then the economics will very much be in favor of EVs again.
Have they solved the range/long charge time problem?
These seem to be problems for people who go out of their way to make them problems. =Smidge=
Slashdot Mirror
Of course they could!!
No, they couldn't. You can't just turn power plants off.
Because exporting it to Arizona with a negative price was cheaper!
The price is the same; that's how fungible markets work. Maybe you can take a few minutes to understand how and why electricity prices go negative before wasting any more of our time...
The is no "grid overload", that is a stupid term of the article writer.
No, it's a real thing. You just don't know what you're talking about.
Your example wiki article has nothing to do with an "overload" that could not be handled, facepalm.
It's a perfect example of a local overload causing a failure cascade resulting in widespread power loss. An excess of power input destabilizes the grid and the whole thing comes crashing down. The key is to keep the power input and power consumption balanced, which in that particular example didn't happen because of a software glitch.
=Smidge=
Of course California could curtail their own production. Facepalm.
They did not want to, because despite the negative price, that was the cheapest option.
Production is not controlled by the state. When we talk about "California" and "Arizona" we are not referring to these areas as governmental regions, but only as geographical ones.
Of course generation companies in California reduced their output if they were able to. They, too, get paid their negative electrical rates. The problem is all of the power sources throughout the California region could not be collectively reduced enough to prevent grid overloading, so they had to cooperate with a neighboring region to distribute the excess power.
Maybe you don't understand what "overloaded" means, or what happens if the power grid becomes overloaded?
If you put X megawatts into the grid, it will consume/dissipate X megawatts. It has to, because energy must be conserved. So what exactly happens to that energy when you put in more than is consumed?
Short answer is, voltage starts to increase, which in turn drives more current through whatever is completing the circuit. The tolerance is just a few percent and there's only a very slim safety margin on top of that (if any, as the age of the grid might mean more load has been connected to some parts than it was originally designed for).
So if you overload it badly enough - put in too much power - you start to trip breakers. That can be catastrophically bad, since a tripping breaker at a substation can suddenly detach tens or hundreds of megawatts of load from a grid system that is already producing too much power. The result is a cascade of failures right up the hierarchy that results in widespread blackouts.
Here's a real example:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
=Smidge=
When you say something stupid like "in fact the energy is just transported away with exactly that grid" you're not understanding that this is only possible because Arizona has decreased their own generation, giving that energy a place to go.
It's important that demand and generation be closely matched at all times. California produces a surplus of energy and needs to export it or their power grid (as a whole) will overload, but California cannot curtail their own generation enough to match their own demand.
This whole thing works because Arizona is decreasing their own power output, getting the total generation between the two states to match total demand between the two states. If they didn't cooperate, there would be no place to export the power to and the grid (as a whole) would overload.
=Smidge=
Even at "End of life" they will likely still work, just not as well. Before recycling I'd think repurposing would be a fairly large market.
For a fraction of the price you can get a solar panel that's maybe 75% of its rated output. That's still usable power, and perhaps a good choice for some low-importance applications.
=Smidge=
..the next generation of Ransomware will exploit a vulnerability in this new service to prevent YOU from accessing these folders and files.
How very convenient!
=Smidge=
Huh, I was thinking of an entirely different movie...
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt01...
=Smidge=
They said I was crazy to dump my life savings into POGs in the late 90's, but that fad will come steamrolling back any day now and I'll be king of the playground again!
BWAHAHAHAHAHA!
=Smidge=
You're right, Kowloon was truly the optimal urban development.
=Smidge=
Do some tinkering with that math and compute how many amps that would be with a typical household electrical service voltage.
Counterpoint 1: Consider how many hours a day is your vehicle is sitting unused, and that virtually every moment of that could potentially be used for charging.
Counterpoint 2: The basic "level 2" charging rate available at virtually all private homes and businesses charges at a rate of about 25 miles per hour, and completes a full charge in 4 hours or less.
but electricity does not work for things like powering trains
Counterpoint 1: Virtually all light rail in my area is "3rd rail" electric, and pretty much every subway is as well. There is also older, overhead electric type.
Counterpoint 2: Trains are about the easiest to electrify, adding "battery cars" strikes me as quite feasible.
long haul trucking, aircraft, watercraft, and so much more
Counterpoint 1: The vast majority of trucking is not long-haul.
Counterpoint 2: Why would it be necessary to replace *every* mode of transportation with a single technology? How does it affect the benefits of electrifying personal vehicles if it's currently not practical to make battery electric aircraft?
Well, for one it might be helpful if idiot tree huggers stop protesting oil pipelines. We need that oil.
Counterpoint 1: Basically none of the oil in the recently contested Keystone XL pipeline would end up being used in the US. The pipeline is bullshit.
Counterpoint 2: Yes, we will need petroleum for lots of things for the foreseeable future... all the more reason to try and NOT burn it unless we absolutely have to.
These idiot tree huggers are destroying the environment.
Counterpoint: Your derogatory characterization and pigeonholing of people who can see the forest for the trees (if you'll allow the expression) is both inaccurate and childish.
=Smidge=
The first amendment prevents government officials from prohibiting or preventing speech. It does not apply to private organizations or businesses like Twitter, who are free (at least constitutionally) to block/ban anyone or delete any message, for any reason. The government cannot prevent you from expressing your views or opinions, but nobody is obliged to facilitate you either.
Twitter as a business is not a government communications platform, but we have a case where a government official is blocking users from equal access to what has been declared as official government communications... even if that communication is via a private third party.
=Smidge=
No, it doesn't, because he is CLEARLY using that account in an official capacity.
It's even in the summary that tweets from his "personal" account are to be considered official statements.
=Smidge=
No, because that is one-on-one communication and would not be interfering with your ability to get your message out to the general public.
A private phone call is not a public forum.
=Smidge=
On the other hand, as a government official using what is arguably an official government platform to do that communicating, it could be that blocking a Twitter user is a form of censorship.
At the very least, blocked users do not show up on your list of followers, so perhaps a case could be made that by blocking @ewhac the President is suppressing your public visibility and is therefore censoring you... a violation the 1st amendment.
IANAL though. I just don't see it as quite that clear-cut.
=Smidge=
I would argue that the problem isn't too many people going to college, it's too many people going to college for the wrong reasons.
You need to have a plan. Either you're working to get a degree that opens up opportunities you're interested in pursuing, or you have some other plan to make ends meet and you're going for a degree out of personal interest and fulfillment.
Both are fine IMHO, but in either case you have a plan.
It strikes me that a lot of students attend college because they feel it's necessary, and take classes/get degrees in subjects with no clear plan to leverage that education for better careers. Instead, it's treated like another 4 years of high school.
=Smidge=
You could probably manage it if you do it slow enough that it doesn't cause a panic sell, and/or do it through a number of shell accounts so it doesn't look too suspicious.
Once you've unloaded a few hundred BTC, try to dump the rest and cause a market crash, then buy back what you sold originally for a fraction of the price and wait for the next bubble.
=Smidge=
You're right, you said "super capacitor plates" which is not entirely the same thing, but the same principle still applies: For high tech applications, purity is critical, and mineral coal is not pure.
Do you ever abstain from trying to torpedo a discussion you're losing by calling the other person a retard?
=Smidge=
You don't need coal to make steel. Coke (which is made from coal) is the traditional fuel, but you can also use natural gas... and there's no reason natural gas needs to come from a non-renewable source.
In fact all you really need is a high purity source of carbon.
=Smidge=
Yes, they CAN do it, but there is no reason to do it.
And mineral coal is not that "close" - it contains a lot of impurities (eg heavy metals, sulfur) which makes it unsuitable for water filtration and battery electrodes in your list of examples.
We don't need coal anymore. When - not if - all the coal is gone, we have it covered.
=Smidge=
Activated CHARcoal, which is not made from mined coal but from organic matter than is run through a gassifier to remove all the volatile compounds and leave the carbon.
You do not need mineral coal for this. There are vanishingly few things that require mineral coal these days.
=Smidge=
Because compiled EXE files can have embedded resources, such as sounds, graphics, etc.
Most commonly for Windows applications, this is icons - usually several variations and versions for different themes, sizes and resolutions.
=Smidge=
"Dark Mode" has been around for about a year now, at least, and I've gotten prompts to turn it on a few times... no arcane bullshit required.
Just change any "www.youtube.com" URL to "gaming.youtube.com" and presto - Dark theme!
Tune in next week when we discover, again, that some 9-volt batteries have six AAAA-sized cells in them!
=Smidge=
#2a - The lease is up.
Lease expires, user returns it to Tesla who then resells it as a used vehicle.
=Smidge=
Speaking of not being able to read; The DOJ did not say the videos were illegal. The DOJ ordered UC Berkeley to make them compliant with ADA standards.
The university decided to remove the media because it was not worth the trouble and cost of fighting a lawsuit over compliance, and the cost of compliance was too high.
There was - is - absolutely nothing wrong with the videos themselves. The word "illegal" does not apply to any part of this situation. Big fuckin' difference.
=Smidge=
Electric cars are a rich person's toy. Is the price difference less than a lifetime's worth of gas yet?
Last I checked - admittedly over five years ago - the premium cost of an electric vehicle (cost above a comparable gasoline vehicle in the same size and class) was paid for by fuel savings if you went with a least option. That is, the monthly lease cost for an EV minus the fuel cost savings was favorable to the monthly cost of leasing a comparable gasoline car.
Whether or not it's economical, however, depends on the cost of gas and how much you drive. When (not if) the price of gas goes back up to where it was circa 2012 then the economics will very much be in favor of EVs again.
Have they solved the range/long charge time problem?
These seem to be problems for people who go out of their way to make them problems.
=Smidge=
Remember; the "S" in "IoT" stands for "Security!"
=Smidge=