No it isn't. It's exactly the same as building an oil rig. The rig itself (and the well) have a finite life and requires maintenance. A solar panel has a finite life and requires maintenance. When the rig or well is worn out, you have to decommission or scrap it. When a solar panel is depleteld, you have to dispose of it. It's exactly the same. Fossil fuel IS solar power, it's just been buried for a while, and of course it has negative environmental costs. Solar power ALSO has negative environmental costs, mostly from mining and manufacture - but the consensus is that it is a net win.
but claiming fossil energy is "naturally" cheaper while the prices are skyrocketing [wikipedia.org]* is an insult to the reader.
At this point in time, it is a statement of fact. It is cheaper to dig a nugget of coal out of the ground and burn it - even inefficiently - than it is to build and operate a solar plant. That may very well change in the future, but that is the case right now. I fully expect solar to keep decreasing in price and fossil fuel to keep increasing in price, but that is all in the hopeful future. Every once in a while fossil fuels get a tech boost, like fracking, that throws our projections all off.
I'm happy (as an outsider) that they are working toward that goal, but if I were German I'd be concerned about pushing technology that isn't yet cost effective. Countries that wait in the wings for solar to get cheaper will end up with a huge competitive advantage, IMHO.
My point is that people lack perspective. The nuke plant problem is serious when viewed in isolation, but minor compared to the disaster that hit the area. If the meltdown had happened without any accompanying natural disaster (like Chernobyl), then I would be a lot more likely to be critical of the engineers.
Sure, the plant was not adequately protected from the tsunami. Neither were 18,000 people. Which is the bigger error in judgement?
I used a typical French plant in my example because Germany borders France and imports most of its power. France has pretty big nukes. Japan has the largest single plant.
Before you kill the engineers, I'd like to meet them. I didn't even know it was possible for mankind to create a 30 meter wave that can kill 18,000 people.
Oh, wait, you meant the engineers that designed the nuclear plant that withstood the largest earthquake ever to hit Japan and then the subsequent tsunami? Hmmm, maybe we should agree to disagree.
The nuke plant gets all the play, and it is an ongoing expensive headache, but there are 18,000 people who would have rather been in Fukushima that day.
LOL! It's all picked by hand, too, ya know... and they don't have bathrooms or sinks in the fields...
It makes sense if you think about it: Fresh Direct (or Amazon or whatever) won't be ordered from again if you get shitty produce. Picking an apple that looks unbruised and appealing is not exactly a difficult job... my 4 year old certainly seems more discerning than me. It's trivial for them to tell the packager to only include appealing fruit. Give the blemished stuff away for a tax write-off, throw it in the juicer, or use it in the prepared foods and baked goods.
Do the solar companies pay to clean up the dysprosium, terbium, europium, neodymium and yttrium mines in China and Africa? Do they account for all of the water and energy used in the manufacture of photovoltaic cells? Do they set aside decommissioning costs when they construct a plant? Why are you holding other industries to a standard that you don't hold solar to?
You serious? You are concerned that an asteroid - of sufficient size to blow through a containment building but not big enough to wipe out a city - will hit in exactly the right place to cause a nuclear catastrophe? I'd calculate the odds, but I'm on my old 32-bit computer.
Unfortunately, they are doing this with an early version of the technology that is not economically feasible and it will probably become evidence for the other side.
Well, that's how the subsidy works. The whole intent is to replace naturally-cheaper fossil fuel and capitalized nuclear with more expensive solar. That a company is unable to sell their gimped fossil fuel power should not be a surprise... that is the policy. There is certainly not an excess of capacity in Germany - they import most of their electricity.
The problem for Germany is that they import 2/3 of their electricity, so they can drive power companies out, but they still need to buy the electricity.
It is pretty awesome progress (from something like 7% of electricity generation to ~25% from 2000 to 2012),
It's a lot less impressive when you look at it in terms of consumption instead of generation. Germany imports most of its energy. The solar produced in July accounts for about 1% of their power consumption, and you can't just multiply that by 12 because July has to be the peak.
I'd say they are "remotely" useful, but you might have to do some work yourself. Using the number 5.1TW-h from the summary and 512.9 TW-h from the consumption link, you can see that solar now accounts for about 1% of consumption. To me, that is stunningly disappointing considering consumers pay 6x what the US does for electricity and import 2/3 of their power.
I'm a big fan of sarcasm, but are you honestly impressed by 5.1 TW-h over the course of an entire month? That's 6.9 GW average.
Now, I don't want to pooh-pooh progress here, because I think solar will eventually be very important - but you are talking about output equivalent to one large coal or nuclear power plant here. To be fair, there is only one nuke plant that big in the world, so let's say the output is equivalent to 2 standard French nuke plants. And for this privilege they pay 6x what consumers in the US do, and import 2/3 of their energy.
A supermarket delivery is likely to contain frozen or chilled items. A doorperson would not be able to store them correctly until the customer gets home.
When I was in NYC, the fact that we had a doorman (I never did see a lady "doorperson"... weird) let us open up the delivery window. The good delivery slots in the evening all filled up quickly. If for some reason I bought frozen things, they would be fine for an hour, so you could perhaps use a slot at 4 instead of 5pm. I bought a lot less frozen in NYC then I do in the suburbs. Prepared food is more abundant there, and the grocery store is no more than a block or so away and was open very late. My refrigerator was also a lot smaller. Not European small, but still not up to the usual American standards. Anyway, I don't know how they will cram "same day" delivery of groceries into such a small delivery window - my guess is they won't; it will be the same deal as Fresh Direct, with time slots that fill up quickly.
It sounds like the buildings in NYC have a doorman on duty 24/7, presumably somewhere near the door...
It varies, and depends on the building layout and wealth. Our building used a "doorman" during daytime hours, when stuff is really busy, but at night one of the maintenance guys just stayed in the lobby. Some doorman buildings just lock up tight at night so you need a key or need to get buzzed in. There are probably an infinite number of combinations:) Anyway, it's not necessarily a rich man's perk in NYC - in fact, a doorman makes an apartment in some of the dicier, lower-rent parts of town seem more realistic. Our friend lived in a walk-up, and she had this unbelievable locking bar that latched into the floor to reinforce the door, so I suppose you could go that route...
Slashdot Mirror
You are correct. My mistake.
Sadly, I got it from Wikipedia - but conflated energy and electricity. I think you are correct.
Yes, but that is only a one time investment.
No it isn't. It's exactly the same as building an oil rig. The rig itself (and the well) have a finite life and requires maintenance. A solar panel has a finite life and requires maintenance. When the rig or well is worn out, you have to decommission or scrap it. When a solar panel is depleteld, you have to dispose of it. It's exactly the same. Fossil fuel IS solar power, it's just been buried for a while, and of course it has negative environmental costs. Solar power ALSO has negative environmental costs, mostly from mining and manufacture - but the consensus is that it is a net win.
but claiming fossil energy is "naturally" cheaper while the prices are skyrocketing [wikipedia.org]* is an insult to the reader.
At this point in time, it is a statement of fact. It is cheaper to dig a nugget of coal out of the ground and burn it - even inefficiently - than it is to build and operate a solar plant. That may very well change in the future, but that is the case right now. I fully expect solar to keep decreasing in price and fossil fuel to keep increasing in price, but that is all in the hopeful future. Every once in a while fossil fuels get a tech boost, like fracking, that throws our projections all off.
I do understand that, but I didn't want to guess at what production would be in cooler months.
Anyway, apparently they do not import 2/3 of their electricity - they import 2/3 of their ENERGY, so I was mistaken there.
Ahh, thanks. Wikipedia is a bit misleading to this addled brain.
I can't read German, but Wikipedia has this to say:
If that is an error, I suggest you make an edit so that shleps like me can speak without looking like an ass!
I'm happy (as an outsider) that they are working toward that goal, but if I were German I'd be concerned about pushing technology that isn't yet cost effective. Countries that wait in the wings for solar to get cheaper will end up with a huge competitive advantage, IMHO.
So a city gets wiped out and you worry about the nuke plant?
My point is that people lack perspective. The nuke plant problem is serious when viewed in isolation, but minor compared to the disaster that hit the area. If the meltdown had happened without any accompanying natural disaster (like Chernobyl), then I would be a lot more likely to be critical of the engineers.
Sure, the plant was not adequately protected from the tsunami. Neither were 18,000 people. Which is the bigger error in judgement?
I used a typical French plant in my example because Germany borders France and imports most of its power. France has pretty big nukes. Japan has the largest single plant.
Before you kill the engineers, I'd like to meet them. I didn't even know it was possible for mankind to create a 30 meter wave that can kill 18,000 people.
Oh, wait, you meant the engineers that designed the nuclear plant that withstood the largest earthquake ever to hit Japan and then the subsequent tsunami? Hmmm, maybe we should agree to disagree.
The nuke plant gets all the play, and it is an ongoing expensive headache, but there are 18,000 people who would have rather been in Fukushima that day.
LOL! It's all picked by hand, too, ya know... and they don't have bathrooms or sinks in the fields...
It makes sense if you think about it: Fresh Direct (or Amazon or whatever) won't be ordered from again if you get shitty produce. Picking an apple that looks unbruised and appealing is not exactly a difficult job... my 4 year old certainly seems more discerning than me. It's trivial for them to tell the packager to only include appealing fruit. Give the blemished stuff away for a tax write-off, throw it in the juicer, or use it in the prepared foods and baked goods.
If the subsidies stop, no one is obligated to buy that power at the high rates that justified the installations.
Do the solar companies pay to clean up the dysprosium, terbium, europium, neodymium and yttrium mines in China and Africa? Do they account for all of the water and energy used in the manufacture of photovoltaic cells? Do they set aside decommissioning costs when they construct a plant? Why are you holding other industries to a standard that you don't hold solar to?
You serious? You are concerned that an asteroid - of sufficient size to blow through a containment building but not big enough to wipe out a city - will hit in exactly the right place to cause a nuclear catastrophe? I'd calculate the odds, but I'm on my old 32-bit computer.
Unfortunately, they are doing this with an early version of the technology that is not economically feasible and it will probably become evidence for the other side.
Well, that's how the subsidy works. The whole intent is to replace naturally-cheaper fossil fuel and capitalized nuclear with more expensive solar. That a company is unable to sell their gimped fossil fuel power should not be a surprise... that is the policy. There is certainly not an excess of capacity in Germany - they import most of their electricity.
Don't let the door hit your ass on the way out.
The problem for Germany is that they import 2/3 of their electricity, so they can drive power companies out, but they still need to buy the electricity.
pre-heating ovens and stoves, etc.
The horror! The HORROR! Good God, once you've pumped an oven up to 350, what can it possibly cost to add 15 minutes to the cook time?
It is pretty awesome progress (from something like 7% of electricity generation to ~25% from 2000 to 2012),
It's a lot less impressive when you look at it in terms of consumption instead of generation. Germany imports most of its energy. The solar produced in July accounts for about 1% of their power consumption, and you can't just multiply that by 12 because July has to be the peak.
I'd say they are "remotely" useful, but you might have to do some work yourself. Using the number 5.1TW-h from the summary and 512.9 TW-h from the consumption link, you can see that solar now accounts for about 1% of consumption. To me, that is stunningly disappointing considering consumers pay 6x what the US does for electricity and import 2/3 of their power.
This can't be right, solar doesn't work
I'm a big fan of sarcasm, but are you honestly impressed by 5.1 TW-h over the course of an entire month? That's 6.9 GW average.
Now, I don't want to pooh-pooh progress here, because I think solar will eventually be very important - but you are talking about output equivalent to one large coal or nuclear power plant here. To be fair, there is only one nuke plant that big in the world, so let's say the output is equivalent to 2 standard French nuke plants. And for this privilege they pay 6x what consumers in the US do, and import 2/3 of their energy.
A supermarket delivery is likely to contain frozen or chilled items. A doorperson would not be able to store them correctly until the customer gets home.
When I was in NYC, the fact that we had a doorman (I never did see a lady "doorperson"... weird) let us open up the delivery window. The good delivery slots in the evening all filled up quickly. If for some reason I bought frozen things, they would be fine for an hour, so you could perhaps use a slot at 4 instead of 5pm. I bought a lot less frozen in NYC then I do in the suburbs. Prepared food is more abundant there, and the grocery store is no more than a block or so away and was open very late. My refrigerator was also a lot smaller. Not European small, but still not up to the usual American standards. Anyway, I don't know how they will cram "same day" delivery of groceries into such a small delivery window - my guess is they won't; it will be the same deal as Fresh Direct, with time slots that fill up quickly.
CRONNNNNNNNNNNNNN! CRONNNNNNNNNNNNNNN!
Filter error: Don't use so many caps. It's like YELLING.
It sounds like the buildings in NYC have a doorman on duty 24/7, presumably somewhere near the door...
It varies, and depends on the building layout and wealth. Our building used a "doorman" during daytime hours, when stuff is really busy, but at night one of the maintenance guys just stayed in the lobby. Some doorman buildings just lock up tight at night so you need a key or need to get buzzed in. There are probably an infinite number of combinations :) Anyway, it's not necessarily a rich man's perk in NYC - in fact, a doorman makes an apartment in some of the dicier, lower-rent parts of town seem more realistic. Our friend lived in a walk-up, and she had this unbelievable locking bar that latched into the floor to reinforce the door, so I suppose you could go that route...