It has been a very widely reported common complaint for the last decade and has been widely discussed even here by people other than myself more qualified to comment. Do a search on slashdot articles and you will find plenty on that topic with ease. Instead of that you decided to go for accusation of tinfoil hattery - waste of space and nasty with it.
It's a licence issue. The owners of the e-ink IP only want their stuff in "premium" products so the rest of us can apparently just go jump. Some authors, programmers etc would love a low end machine with an e-ink screen to do stuff with text but the only thing that comes close is using a Boox tablet with a bluetooth keyboard, and that's only become available a decade after sucha thing would have been possible without a lot of effort.
I may be a little addled in my ability to remember, but I have this deeply nagging feeling at the back of my mind that they had a full color e-ink prototype waaaaaaaaaaaay back in the late 90s
That display has colours that are not very intense. Ectaco sells a device with it. It compares with faded old comics on newsprint for colour. It's not something the advertising industry would be interested in for signs.
Yes, absolutely, short-lived waste needs to be stored safely too, but that storage isn't a problem in any technical sense
The entire point of my comments on this thread is to correct those that deny that such a thing exists and that it needs to be dealt with instead of being ignored.
So many people erroneously see fast breeder reactors as a total waste solution instead of a partial fuel solution.
and groundwater won't corrode the storage
Incorporation, such as synrok, instead of encapsulation in some sort of glass, solves that problem.
but not so completely infeasible
I never suggested that. I merely object to things like the ignorant fanboi far above who decided to lecture us on how some sort of magic is going to fix everything. If he had actually learned more about the reactors he mentioned he could have written something far less boring and stupid.
The 80% is from ARES's website, their press kit has it at 78.3%.
Hence the bullshit meter going into overload - "just trust us" they are saying - "a tiny startup with very mundane technology is 10% better than what anyone else can do".
and more scalable than flywheel storage
I'm not a big fan of flywheel storage (despite my first use of CAD and FEA in the 1980s being design of a flywheel using a teletype terminal) but you can add more flywheels just like you can add more locomotives.
Trains feature the same number of conversion steps as a pumped storage plant
The scale is very different, the voltages are very different, so the electrical losses are very different.
These days they also need to be better than at least a dozen windmills but do not seem to come up to even that point. The more I think about it the more I wonder about money changing hands behind the scenes.
There's still a bit of a gap between a Russian government owned icebreaker and selling a nuclear powered ship to a cruise line. Calling those things "civilian" is one thing, expecting them outside of direct government control any time soon - there lies the fantasy.
With the French government raid on Google offices today it appears that they are most definitely being accused of breaking existing laws and evidence is being gathered to bring it to court. Whether they are guilty of outright tax evasion remains to be seen but there are definitely a lot of accusations of illegal activity.
gas turbines are popular for this, but they are really inefficient
But much larger - here's an idea of how tiny the project is from an article one link away from the one in the summary:
The company is currently in the middle of the permit process to construct a full-scale commercial 50 MW REM
"Full scale commercial" is less than the size of ONE engine in a Boeing 777? This is looking more and more like the vector for a scam all of the time. I haven't found yet where that truly magical 80% figure comes from. If it's real why didn't anyone else notice over that last fifty years? That rail company that went into internet could have made a killing in electricity storage as well.
Again, 80% is pretty good and beats many other storage systems.
Indeed which is why I am very curious about where those wonderful numbers come from and what spectacular recent change has occurred to make it possible despite it appearing that nothing much has changed with locomotives over the last few decades. How does a system with so many steps get 80% and if so why did nobody notice it and try to take advantage of it in 1950? Why use all this pumped storage if trains were better all along? Is it due to the tiny scale or do those numbers not really add up to 80%? Where does that figure come from anyway?
"Surely transmission losses getting to the train power network" was meant to mean transformer losses since trains run at a different voltage to the interconnections of the electricity supply network. It's a bit of a Rube-Goldberg machine with losses at each step IMHO, and the amount you can generate from a locomotive (around 3MW each) is not very much either. At a power station I worked at the standby generator (for getting conveyors etc going for a cold start) which was built around a jet engine from the 1950s could output 20MW - in terms of electricity generation locomotives are tiny and could be replaced with only a couple of windmills each.
I'm beginning to suspect that this is just another example of someone taking advantage of government money for a project designed to fill their own pocket with little or no benefit for anyone else. Something like this has been possible for a century - why no takers until now?
No, many/most things become radioactive under neutron bombardment, but generally they have a short halflife
When you are dealing with very large amounts of material and a lot of neutrons, and have a definition of "short" that does not allow you to wait a decade or two then there is a lot of waste that should not be waved away as if magic can make it vanish. Hence needing storage solutions. Several exist.
As I mentioned well above the Harford web site is a good place to start for those that know little about the subject but still wish to discuss it just the same. It will help you understand that the simple back of a cornflake packet summaries you've been given in the past don't completely apply on an industrial scale - where "not much" waste means loading up a railcar or two.
Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you
I really hope there is a lot more than that going on.
Surely transmission losses getting to the train power network and then out to where the locomotives are is non-trivial. That's part of the entire cycle.
That doesn't sound right. For the entire cycle or just recovery? Electric motors are nowhere near perfect whether they are run as motors or generators.
The company went bankrupt a couple of years ago after building their first 20 MW storage plant
A power station I worked at had a backup generator that size run by an engine out of a British fighter jet from the 1950s. Not big but it could run conveyors and coal crushers to get a coal fired unit up and running from a cold start. A pump storage plant I spent a day working at had two 250MW turbines that could run until the storage dam was dry. Not big for hydro or pump storage. Twenty megawatts is tiny. The Boeing 777 has a few 75MW engines, and that's something that flies let alone land based power generation or land based storage.
I know pilot plants are supposed to be small, but I thought I'd better add some perspective about how tiny a scale that is - engine for a small single seater fighter jet from the 1950s small.
The world is moving towards more closely matching electricity supply to daily demand so hopefully we'll need less of these methods of shifting off peak power to peak power. Without exception they are all very lossy, some like this a lot more lossy than others. Using the power to actually do something useful instead of lossy storage, or not using resources to generate the unneeded offpeak power at all is a better idea. If it's an ore train in no hurry moving only at night when plenty of power is available then that's a good idea if there's plenty of sidings, staff are cheap etc etc. Shuffling rolling stock around and consuming a lot of power to release only a small amount at peak times isn't such a good idea and makes me wonder if some palms were greased and kickbacks delivered.
Yes it could given a long chain of events that have not happened, so the above poster is currently correct and your "that you are incorrect sir" is misplaced.
I certainly have noticed on many occasions hence what I've written. It's good that you have had better experiences but it is most definitely not always the case. If you want to suggest otherwise, fair enough, but I have observed what I have observed and it has been very annoying as a client. I've been on the other end with implementing a ticketing systems and improving response time but most places do not bother to put on enough support staff to keep response times low.
The most utterly fucking ridiculous one was with Macrovision (I can mention them because they've been bought out and the name has gone) in 2008 with a Y2K bug of all things. Their "protection" software, which only punished the honest, was changed so that permanent licences (which were dated as "00") expired in the year 2000. It was a couple of weeks before that was resolved and I could not run the software from another vendor that was "protected" for that period of time. The slow response time happened despite daily nagging from myself and the vendor of the software I wanted to run.
The moral of the story is that with closed source software there are many more risks of a roadblock than with open source software. You have to balance the benefits versus the risks.
It's a widespread problem, so yes, such accusations are indeed flying about especially given the undisguised contempt of the law Cisco has demonstrated in the past.
There's been a few things coming out recently indicating that there is a lot going on which is not legal and deliberately hidden - hence it being an item in the news and the IRS etc getting active.
A better documented one from a few years back with people fired, jailed, Yukaza links etc is Olympus. Very blatant tax evasion on an international scale and caught at it.
It's designed to store the high-level waste that remains highly radioactive on geologic timescales.
There are many levels of waste and fuel can only be processed from a very small portion of that total, thus leaving a lot of waste that remains highly radioactive.
There are of course some elements that react more unpleasantly to neutron activation, but the solution is simple - don't use those elements
WTF? That "some" is that majority of all elements known!
I didn't say skipping processes, I was discussing different processes and the ability of developers to take responsibility for their own work. Defect resolution on many commercial software projects is very slow, to the point where it can be weeks before a client is able to inform the developer responsible for the portion of code related to the defect that there is a defect in the first place!
Slashdot Mirror
There are plenty of things not certified to run on CentOS7/RHEL7.
Also, at the risk of massive flamage - systemd.
Two very good reasons to keep on upgrading CentOS6.
It has been a very widely reported common complaint for the last decade and has been widely discussed even here by people other than myself more qualified to comment. Do a search on slashdot articles and you will find plenty on that topic with ease. Instead of that you decided to go for accusation of tinfoil hattery - waste of space and nasty with it.
Pretty close is still an extra step away, however see that long list of other issues I mentioned.
This smells very strongly like scam and the only people giving that very unlikely 80% number are the possible scammers.
It's a licence issue. The owners of the e-ink IP only want their stuff in "premium" products so the rest of us can apparently just go jump. Some authors, programmers etc would love a low end machine with an e-ink screen to do stuff with text but the only thing that comes close is using a Boox tablet with a bluetooth keyboard, and that's only become available a decade after sucha thing would have been possible without a lot of effort.
That display has colours that are not very intense. Ectaco sells a device with it. It compares with faded old comics on newsprint for colour. It's not something the advertising industry would be interested in for signs.
The entire point of my comments on this thread is to correct those that deny that such a thing exists and that it needs to be dealt with instead of being ignored.
So many people erroneously see fast breeder reactors as a total waste solution instead of a partial fuel solution.
Incorporation, such as synrok, instead of encapsulation in some sort of glass, solves that problem.
I never suggested that. I merely object to things like the ignorant fanboi far above who decided to lecture us on how some sort of magic is going to fix everything. If he had actually learned more about the reactors he mentioned he could have written something far less boring and stupid.
Hence the bullshit meter going into overload - "just trust us" they are saying - "a tiny startup with very mundane technology is 10% better than what anyone else can do".
I'm not a big fan of flywheel storage (despite my first use of CAD and FEA in the 1980s being design of a flywheel using a teletype terminal) but you can add more flywheels just like you can add more locomotives.
The scale is very different, the voltages are very different, so the electrical losses are very different.
These days they also need to be better than at least a dozen windmills but do not seem to come up to even that point. The more I think about it the more I wonder about money changing hands behind the scenes.
There's still a bit of a gap between a Russian government owned icebreaker and selling a nuclear powered ship to a cruise line. Calling those things "civilian" is one thing, expecting them outside of direct government control any time soon - there lies the fantasy.
With the French government raid on Google offices today it appears that they are most definitely being accused of breaking existing laws and evidence is being gathered to bring it to court.
Whether they are guilty of outright tax evasion remains to be seen but there are definitely a lot of accusations of illegal activity.
But much larger - here's an idea of how tiny the project is from an article one link away from the one in the summary:
"Full scale commercial" is less than the size of ONE engine in a Boeing 777? This is looking more and more like the vector for a scam all of the time. I haven't found yet where that truly magical 80% figure comes from. If it's real why didn't anyone else notice over that last fifty years? That rail company that went into internet could have made a killing in electricity storage as well.
Indeed which is why I am very curious about where those wonderful numbers come from and what spectacular recent change has occurred to make it possible despite it appearing that nothing much has changed with locomotives over the last few decades.
How does a system with so many steps get 80% and if so why did nobody notice it and try to take advantage of it in 1950? Why use all this pumped storage if trains were better all along?
Is it due to the tiny scale or do those numbers not really add up to 80%? Where does that figure come from anyway?
"Surely transmission losses getting to the train power network" was meant to mean transformer losses since trains run at a different voltage to the interconnections of the electricity supply network.
It's a bit of a Rube-Goldberg machine with losses at each step IMHO, and the amount you can generate from a locomotive (around 3MW each) is not very much either. At a power station I worked at the standby generator (for getting conveyors etc going for a cold start) which was built around a jet engine from the 1950s could output 20MW - in terms of electricity generation locomotives are tiny and could be replaced with only a couple of windmills each.
I'm beginning to suspect that this is just another example of someone taking advantage of government money for a project designed to fill their own pocket with little or no benefit for anyone else. Something like this has been possible for a century - why no takers until now?
When you are dealing with very large amounts of material and a lot of neutrons, and have a definition of "short" that does not allow you to wait a decade or two then there is a lot of waste that should not be waved away as if magic can make it vanish. Hence needing storage solutions. Several exist.
As I mentioned well above the Harford web site is a good place to start for those that know little about the subject but still wish to discuss it just the same. It will help you understand that the simple back of a cornflake packet summaries you've been given in the past don't completely apply on an industrial scale - where "not much" waste means loading up a railcar or two.
I really hope there is a lot more than that going on.
Surely transmission losses getting to the train power network and then out to where the locomotives are is non-trivial. That's part of the entire cycle.
Easy, just reduce it with a lot of hydrogen you make using ... oh damn.
That doesn't sound right. For the entire cycle or just recovery? Electric motors are nowhere near perfect whether they are run as motors or generators.
A power station I worked at had a backup generator that size run by an engine out of a British fighter jet from the 1950s. Not big but it could run conveyors and coal crushers to get a coal fired unit up and running from a cold start. A pump storage plant I spent a day working at had two 250MW turbines that could run until the storage dam was dry. Not big for hydro or pump storage.
Twenty megawatts is tiny.
The Boeing 777 has a few 75MW engines, and that's something that flies let alone land based power generation or land based storage.
I know pilot plants are supposed to be small, but I thought I'd better add some perspective about how tiny a scale that is - engine for a small single seater fighter jet from the 1950s small.
The world is moving towards more closely matching electricity supply to daily demand so hopefully we'll need less of these methods of shifting off peak power to peak power. Without exception they are all very lossy, some like this a lot more lossy than others. Using the power to actually do something useful instead of lossy storage, or not using resources to generate the unneeded offpeak power at all is a better idea.
If it's an ore train in no hurry moving only at night when plenty of power is available then that's a good idea if there's plenty of sidings, staff are cheap etc etc. Shuffling rolling stock around and consuming a lot of power to release only a small amount at peak times isn't such a good idea and makes me wonder if some palms were greased and kickbacks delivered.
Yes it could given a long chain of events that have not happened, so the above poster is currently correct and your "that you are incorrect sir" is misplaced.
I certainly have noticed on many occasions hence what I've written. It's good that you have had better experiences but it is most definitely not always the case. If you want to suggest otherwise, fair enough, but I have observed what I have observed and it has been very annoying as a client. I've been on the other end with implementing a ticketing systems and improving response time but most places do not bother to put on enough support staff to keep response times low.
The most utterly fucking ridiculous one was with Macrovision (I can mention them because they've been bought out and the name has gone) in 2008 with a Y2K bug of all things. Their "protection" software, which only punished the honest, was changed so that permanent licences (which were dated as "00") expired in the year 2000. It was a couple of weeks before that was resolved and I could not run the software from another vendor that was "protected" for that period of time. The slow response time happened despite daily nagging from myself and the vendor of the software I wanted to run.
The moral of the story is that with closed source software there are many more risks of a roadblock than with open source software. You have to balance the benefits versus the risks.
It's a widespread problem, so yes, such accusations are indeed flying about especially given the undisguised contempt of the law Cisco has demonstrated in the past.
There's been a few things coming out recently indicating that there is a lot going on which is not legal and deliberately hidden - hence it being an item in the news and the IRS etc getting active.
A better documented one from a few years back with people fired, jailed, Yukaza links etc is Olympus. Very blatant tax evasion on an international scale and caught at it.
There are many levels of waste and fuel can only be processed from a very small portion of that total, thus leaving a lot of waste that remains highly radioactive.
WTF? That "some" is that majority of all elements known!
I didn't say skipping processes, I was discussing different processes and the ability of developers to take responsibility for their own work.
Defect resolution on many commercial software projects is very slow, to the point where it can be weeks before a client is able to inform the developer responsible for the portion of code related to the defect that there is a defect in the first place!