Designed, but not built or proven cost effective for huge load.
Oh yes, that comfortable narrow-minded argument.
In the news: Progress with power technology A Slashdot: Bah Humbug! A is for base load, can never cover peak load Answer: Use technology B for peak load. Next Troll. That's BS. Will never be able to cover base load!
Combination of different methods is completly ignored. See:
What people seem to fail to understand here is that a power source like solar provides a lot of energy in the day but ZERO at night..
But a) power consumption drops at night and b) there is still wind power. And we don't have to scrap all the existing plants in the next few months and I'm fine with running a few conventional plants for what is then left as baseload.
In this bigger picture I see two different possible scenarios: Due to the day-night-rhythm, solar power production will automatically better match the performance pattern, leveling out the amount of additional power needed as "hot spare" for peaks or
We'll see a huge raise in power storage capabilities. Less in efficiency, but in absolut amount: electric cars. AND they can be charged, whenever there is a production peak. Of course this will come with a sharp increase of demand for electric power in general, but we're adding new renewable energy to the grid anyway! The only differnce is that in that scenario, solar won't be able to replace a single conventional plant and therefore will be decried as a failure. The number of combustion engines replaced will be overlooked and ignored as they haven't been part of the electric grid equiation before.
How sad is it that prison rape and rape in general is such a joke in the US that one of the first comments on any forum when somebody talks about prisoner well-being is that they not drop the soap, because HA-HA some maleficent goon might RAPE them?
Tells us a lot about how the US prison system thinks of human dignity.
And it may be true or not. That's the part I'm not disputing.(*) But even assuming it is true, it's no unchangeable natural law that makes one energy naturally cheaper than any other. You said yourself that tech will change.
(*) come on, comparing the maintanance of an oil rig to the maintanance of going over PV panels with a bottle of Windex? (**)
Partly right. Corporations have no sense of ethics, but they are selfish. On the other hand, that doesn't mean that they can't act beneficial (the whole market theory revolves around egoistic entities finding the price points where everyone benefits the most)
So charitable actions are not evil, but usually geared towards raising profits as a side effect (as facebook here or MS getting kindergarden kids hooked on MS Office) or geared to increase the organisations reputation.
And in a wider sense, even the most altruistic actions can be seen as egoistic, as even christian charity has the "personal advantage" of not going to hell. For buddists, it builds one of the solid pillars for your life, and even atheists will profit from peace of mind after a donation.
Yes, but that is only a one time investment. And the ressources needed to "tap into wind or solar" is what I'd rather compare to the costs of building a coal plant, which is also a one time investment.
But what blew my top was not the claim that one technology is cheaper than the other. Based on the different cost structures you'll get every possible result for an example comparision. It was the use of the word "naturally" in that "I'm not going to proof that claim, but it is so natural that you've got to be stupid not to see it" way.
Claiming that solar is "naturally" cheaper because the sun is free may just have been the usual tree-hugger fallacy, but claiming fossil energy is "naturally" cheaper while the prices are skyrocketing* is an insult to the reader.
Fukushima, that badly inspected, badly maintained, badly regulated, overdue for decommissioning power plant
That's exactly the same cool-aid they poured on us after Chernobyl. Yes yes... that only could happen in Russia because Russian reactors are " badly inspected, badly maintained, badly regulated, overdue for decommissioning". This NEVER can happen in modern, western nuclear plants.....
And now, surprise surprise, it is discovered that a high-tech nation as Japan ALSO has "badly inspected, badly maintained, badly regulated, overdue for decommissioning power plant[s]"
So, what exactly, besides the "fact" that it hasn't spilled it's nuclear inventory all over the place yet, makes you so sure that the plant next to you is so much better maintained and so much more safe than Fukushima, which was also assumed to be safe?
Given that fracking is causing natural gas to be plentiful and cheap, maybe what Germany really should be doing is building natural gas.
Unlike the US, Germany does not have huge areas of spare, uninhibited land that can be turned into toxic desserts. Oh wait... PA is NOT uninhibited....
While it's not the only factor determining the combined, compareable price for a form of energy production: fossil fuels as to be extracted with huge technological effort and costs. Sun shines for free, wind blows for free.
That's no implied statement about total cost but having that in mind, claiming that fossil fuel is NATURALLY cheaper is a whole bunch of FUD-BS.
More "efficient" ways to create energy compared to not paying anything for fuel?
I'm not going to repeat the fairy tale from free solar power, but the cost structure is completly different from fossil power to be compared that way. And fuel prices WILL rise. That's basically avoiding to have to pay (comparatively high) upfront costs for solar/wind when it is to late and fuel prices are rising. Because, if your electricity bill has to cover rising fuel prices AND establishing regenerative power sources, it will skyrocket.
AC's formulae are correct, but his numeric values suck. Solar cell wattage output starts declining after a few years, and German cities only receive approx much less than the 3,000 sun-hours/year his calculations assume. 1650 sun-hours is a much more accurate estimate.
That number is pretty much useless as PV cells don't need direct, unclouded sunlight to work. So when considering the time available for production of solar energy, it is probably safe to assume 365 days with daylight at daytime and average them as always cloudy.
Before that happens, energy at nighttime will be in high enough demand to have those plants make money again. We probably should trust those "magic correcting forces" of a market at least that far.
Contrary to the claims some extreme liberals it will not fix everything, but as long there is demand, money can be made.
First of all, the exact terms are negotiable, so there is still a bit leeway for both sides. (e.g. I've been able to shorten that time by two weeks by giving up one week of paid leave I still had) so usually both sides come to some kind of agreement.
But if they don't and you just don't show up anymore, It's a heavy breach of contract which would lead to a) an immedeate termination of your work contract, you'd lose your severance, and the first 6 weeks of unemployment help and can be sued for any damage
And probably worst of all: It will be mentioned in some way in your written recommendation which will make it much more difficult to find a new job in the future. (you're expected to include a complete papertrail of those that match your CV with each job application)
And a free Pro-Tipp: If you ever get a german reference that states that you always "gave your best" or "helped creating a good office atmosphere" - burn it and make up a cover story about travelling the Paraguayan rain forrest for your next jon interview. Those phrases are the worst that could ever happen to you.
Slashdot Mirror
According to this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP)_per_capita the US economy is somewhere between #6 and #9
It's not like embracing freedom, pluralism and life would make the terrorists stop hating us.
But it would have stopped turning thousends other people into terrorists, too.
Designed, but not built or proven cost effective for huge load.
Oh yes, that comfortable narrow-minded argument.
In the news: Progress with power technology A
Slashdot: Bah Humbug! A is for base load, can never cover peak load
Answer: Use technology B for peak load.
Next Troll. That's BS. Will never be able to cover base load!
Combination of different methods is completly ignored. See:
What people seem to fail to understand here is that a power source like solar provides a lot of energy in the day but ZERO at night. .
But a) power consumption drops at night and b) there is still wind power. And we don't have to scrap all the existing plants in the next few months and I'm fine with running a few conventional plants for what is then left as baseload.
In this bigger picture I see two different possible scenarios: Due to the day-night-rhythm, solar power production will automatically better match the performance pattern, leveling out the amount of additional power needed as "hot spare" for peaks or
We'll see a huge raise in power storage capabilities. Less in efficiency, but in absolut amount: electric cars. AND they can be charged, whenever there is a production peak. Of course this will come with a sharp increase of demand for electric power in general, but we're adding new renewable energy to the grid anyway! The only differnce is that in that scenario, solar won't be able to replace a single conventional plant and therefore will be decried as a failure. The number of combustion engines replaced will be overlooked and ignored as they haven't been part of the electric grid equiation before.
How sad is it that prison rape and rape in general is such a joke in the US that one of the first comments on any forum when somebody talks about prisoner well-being is that they not drop the soap, because HA-HA some maleficent goon might RAPE them?
Tells us a lot about how the US prison system thinks of human dignity.
So the "mad scientist" stereotype has been amended with the "mad dentist"?
Not with John Lennon, but there was a similar story-arc in ReGenesis.
That#s what gas turbine plants are designed for.
At this point in time, it is a statement of fact.
And it may be true or not. That's the part I'm not disputing.(*) But even assuming it is true, it's no unchangeable natural law that makes one energy naturally cheaper than any other. You said yourself that tech will change.
(*) come on, comparing the maintanance of an oil rig to the maintanance of going over PV panels with a bottle of Windex? (**)
(**) statement exaggerated for comical effect
Partly right. Corporations have no sense of ethics, but they are selfish. On the other hand, that doesn't mean that they can't act beneficial (the whole market theory revolves around egoistic entities finding the price points where everyone benefits the most)
So charitable actions are not evil, but usually geared towards raising profits as a side effect (as facebook here or MS getting kindergarden kids hooked on MS Office) or geared to increase the organisations reputation.
And in a wider sense, even the most altruistic actions can be seen as egoistic, as even christian charity has the "personal advantage" of not going to hell. For buddists, it builds one of the solid pillars for your life, and even atheists will profit from peace of mind after a donation.
Yes, but that is only a one time investment. And the ressources needed to "tap into wind or solar" is what I'd rather compare to the costs of building a coal plant, which is also a one time investment.
But what blew my top was not the claim that one technology is cheaper than the other. Based on the different cost structures you'll get every possible result for an example comparision. It was the use of the word "naturally" in that "I'm not going to proof that claim, but it is so natural that you've got to be stupid not to see it" way.
Claiming that solar is "naturally" cheaper because the sun is free may just have been the usual tree-hugger fallacy, but claiming fossil energy is "naturally" cheaper while the prices are skyrocketing* is an insult to the reader.
*note that the price is on a logarithmic scale!
That's 5 million megawatt hours in a month DIVIDED BY 24 * 30 hours in a month.
Here's a clue. Germany is NOT a sunny nation.
Doesn't that make those 5.1TWh even more remarkable?
Fukushima, that badly inspected, badly maintained, badly regulated, overdue for decommissioning power plant
That's exactly the same cool-aid they poured on us after Chernobyl. Yes yes... that only could happen in Russia because Russian reactors are " badly inspected, badly maintained, badly regulated, overdue for decommissioning". This NEVER can happen in modern, western nuclear plants.....
And now, surprise surprise, it is discovered that a high-tech nation as Japan ALSO has "badly inspected, badly maintained, badly regulated, overdue for decommissioning power plant[s]"
So, what exactly, besides the "fact" that it hasn't spilled it's nuclear inventory all over the place yet, makes you so sure that the plant next to you is so much better maintained and so much more safe than Fukushima, which was also assumed to be safe?
Given that fracking is causing natural gas to be plentiful and cheap, maybe what Germany really should be doing is building natural gas.
Unlike the US, Germany does not have huge areas of spare, uninhibited land that can be turned into toxic desserts. Oh wait... PA is NOT uninhibited....
While it's not the only factor determining the combined, compareable price for a form of energy production: fossil fuels as to be extracted with huge technological effort and costs. Sun shines for free, wind blows for free.
That's no implied statement about total cost but having that in mind, claiming that fossil fuel is NATURALLY cheaper is a whole bunch of FUD-BS.
Where did you get that number from?
What I heard last was that Germany exports roughly as much energy as it imports.
More "efficient" ways to create energy compared to not paying anything for fuel?
I'm not going to repeat the fairy tale from free solar power, but the cost structure is completly different from fossil power to be compared that way. And fuel prices WILL rise. That's basically avoiding to have to pay (comparatively high) upfront costs for solar/wind when it is to late and fuel prices are rising. Because, if your electricity bill has to cover rising fuel prices AND establishing regenerative power sources, it will skyrocket.
70% of that is taxes and subsidies for almost every kind of energy (including coal)
Energy production and usage won't effect 70% of the price, so if you want to have a better comparision, you'd need to compare the price without taxes.
AC's formulae are correct, but his numeric values suck. Solar cell wattage output starts declining after a few years, and German cities only receive approx much less than the 3,000 sun-hours/year his calculations assume. 1650 sun-hours is a much more accurate estimate.
That number is pretty much useless as PV cells don't need direct, unclouded sunlight to work. So when considering the time available for production of solar energy, it is probably safe to assume 365 days with daylight at daytime and average them as always cloudy.
Germany gets as much sun as Alaska.
And considering that was enough to generate those 5.1TWh, I#m wondering why this isn't catching on where there is more sun.
So what is the financial cost? It's negative, because the very people paying higher electricity costs today will be
...
having well paid jobs in a companies selling renewable energy technology to other countries when their oil is running out.
Before that happens, energy at nighttime will be in high enough demand to have those plants make money again. We probably should trust those "magic correcting forces" of a market at least that far.
Contrary to the claims some extreme liberals it will not fix everything, but as long there is demand, money can be made.
Well, I help to save energy by switching of my bedroom lights every night when I go to sleep...
First of all, the exact terms are negotiable, so there is still a bit leeway for both sides. (e.g. I've been able to shorten that time by two weeks by giving up one week of paid leave I still had) so usually both sides come to some kind of agreement.
But if they don't and you just don't show up anymore, It's a heavy breach of contract which would lead to a) an immedeate termination of your work contract, you'd lose your severance, and the first 6 weeks of unemployment help and can be sued for any damage
And probably worst of all: It will be mentioned in some way in your written recommendation which will make it much more difficult to find a new job in the future. (you're expected to include a complete papertrail of those that match your CV with each job application)
Germany.
And a free Pro-Tipp: If you ever get a german reference that states that you always "gave your best" or "helped creating a good office atmosphere" - burn it and make up a cover story about travelling the Paraguayan rain forrest for your next jon interview. Those phrases are the worst that could ever happen to you.