The answer to corrosion is easy - just coat everything in gold. However there are a very wide range of ways to manage the problem without going to such a stupidly expensive extreme and many actually get easier with scale. You can't bolt an enormous anode to a small boat but a fixed installation on the sea floor is a different story.
I DID use google and it very quickly showed that a single coal fired power station in France has a larger capacity than you suggest is the total for that type of energy generation. You have failed to address that error. Not a lot of "reality" going on I must say and I do not see why you expect to be taken on your word without question after your errors about wind being of no consequence, France with 100% nuclear and now France with an energy mix with coal total less than a single one of their coal fired power plants (although the example I have given is their largest). I'm sure that you are very good at something but you have been very misleading on this topic and have demonstrated a great deal of contempt to the readers here by doing so. It certainly pissed me off despite not having direct involvement in the electricity generating industry since 1998.
The exported stuff is mostly high quality stuff used for steel production, where it's needed to reduce iron oxide to iron, and not the run of the mill coal (of which they have a lot of their own) used to burn to make steam. Now that China is cutting back on steel production that's going to be noticable and you may see some coal mines in trouble.
I'd argue that it was the market protection of steel that started the avalanche. Industries that needed steel and could get it cheaper elsewhere (from places no longer using 1960s technology with a markup to boost profits protected nicely by the government) moved. Also unintended consequences, and in motion before Nixon implemented environmental policies.
It's the pre-emptive dirty debating tactic of getting in first and accusing somebody else of what you yourself are doing so that their accusations look like "no you did that not me" playground arguments. You see it a lot from the science denial crowd and others with no shame. They also like to go on about the money spent on climate science as funding propaganda when the reality is wandering science deniers on lecture tours are making more money than any Nobel prize winning scientist ever did.
How else would you describe that wikipedia link other than a technical contribution? It's a bit of reality to show the propaganda is not correct and that the numbers on that page you indicate do not appear to suggest what you say they do. You attempted to bluff me with a non-english report from many years back but from what French I remember and the coal number being less than even one existing power station it's another bait and switch. Do you have no shame? What is it with politics that makes people throw their normal morality out the window? Also, I don't know what sort of time wasting bluff you wish to run using page 9, but if it's based on imports and ignoring the coal mines inside France then once again you are showing utter contempt to anyone with the misfortune to read your misleading bullshit. You should be disgusted with your behaviour on this thread - look at what being a useful political idiot attacking anything green has resulted in you writing.
China is huge but is on Beijing time, however in regions far from Beijing people set their work times by what is sensible and not by the numbers on the clock. Most businesses around the world open more than 5 days already have different weekend opening and closing times. Why not different summer and winter operating times?
Those numbers in the PDF make zero sense for national capacity since the "Charbon" amount is less than the capacity at this power station alone: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cordemais_Power_Station Either you have been misled or you are actively trying to mislead. Besides, it's just a distraction from your 100% stupidity which strongly indicated that you are and "ends justify the means" type of person with your favourite alternative energy, and once again it does not appear to match reality - even back in 2006 (how pathetic to go back eight years).
You did - 100% for all of France right up there above. It's that sort of misleading political bullshit that is poisoning the minds of the kiddies and you should not be perpetrating it.
The 75% figure is very well documented in multiple sources
Then link to a primary source instead of the fan material that google may be showing - plus that neither makes up for your 100% bluff above or answer how it fits with 76.4% conventional when a single coal fired power station makes up 2%.
I said wind will never be a large contributor
Don't shift the goalposts - what I object to is the following:
Wind power has not yet proved that it can supply large quantities of power
Except it already is doing so in modern power grids and it has been supplying a large quantity of power for some societies ever since before Don Quixote was written. Those machines were grinding grain and were not just there for decoration.
I pity you that you cannot understand this.
No, you pity that I'm not an ignorant little boy that cannot see through your bluffs like your "100% nuclear". It's a bit ridiculous that somebody like me who works with coal has to step in when advocates of one alternative energy (nuclear) tell lies to try to pretend another alternative energy (wind) is useless. A sane power grid requires a mix of energy sources, and it certainly doesn't involve 100% base load systems like nuclear. Even kids in high school know better than that until people like you attempt to mislead them.
You failed to refute my points and have written silly distractions instead - shouldn't that put you, Karmashock, on eight null points by your silly rules? It's a question for you, so not a null post by your silly rules. How about you attempt to refute my points instead of this silly game of yours? Is that "intellectual" enough for you?
If you don't want to carry out your duty as a citizen, that's fine, you just have to put up with the government chosen by those who did. Of course with a few quirks like blatant Gerrymanders of course from the State level and other weirdness at the county level that strongly influence who gets in.
Compulsory voting run by an impartial nation wide body is likely to deliver more than two choices in some places and more than the single choice in others. People may actually end up with a government that listens to them instead of what Rupert Murdoch has decided will be on Fox News.
Try this - space travel is hard so you have to put a shitload of effort in and need the resources of a government or similar behind you to progress. So far that has been well and truly worth it and will be in the future, but pretending it's going to be easy is just setting up for "where's my flying car" disappointment. Gravity is a harsh mistress.
Of course it's a bad week for running spaceflight as a cottage industry instead of something with the expertise of a group like NASA behind the private groups. We've set it to be far too much of a hands off approach and the lack of expertise available for purely political reasons is showing. We have private nuclear with the involvement of a lot of government experts and government help so why can't we run spaceflight the same way instead of this odd and now tragic experiment in pretend private enterprise? It's not real private enterprise because governments are the main customer and define a major portion of each business.
France, which runs on 100% nuclear power for all of its electricity, every day, all the time
No exaggeration, no technicality to get out on, no "would you believe two boy scouts and a pen knife" joke - it's an obvious bald faced lie used as a bluff, and then you turn around and make some sort of demand after being caught out in such an obvious lie. How about less politics and less stupid implications like your new one that implies that wind is useless for all purposes if it's not 75% of everything. Less politically motivated "end justifies the means" bullshit and this place would be better for everyone, just like it used to be. I very much doubt 75% is the case apart from a absolute yearly maximum in the middle of a summer night either considering the size of Cordemais (2.6GW), other coal fired plants and there's 18.2GW of hydro. One site lists France as having 76.4% "conventional capacity", by which they mean non-renewables including nuclear - how the hell can there be only 1.4% coal when one single plant is 2.6GW - that's nearly 2% of France's total capacity.
You seem to have forgotten that this site is visited by people that do not spend their lives coding in basements.
Stupid exaggeration has everything to do with politics. The article mentioned it as part of the energy mix, and FYI biomass generation includes existing gas from sewerage generators - the sort of thing that everybody with every sort of politics used to like until it was seen to be a green political symbol and thus something to attack.
I answer your own questions about paranoia etc and you call it a "null comment"? I'm sorry if I'm ruining your petty little game where you want to put others down for your masturbatory pleasure. Science is real you misinformation spreading dickhead.
Ah, a new game you want to play at my expense! You get to choose who wins. How fucking juvenile.
Meanwhile everything I wrote above stands - the current situation is a pushback of scientists and those who do not deny reality against very expensive lying PR funded by people such as Koch and spread by groups like the Heartland Institute. Pretending that it started with the pushback is highly partisan misinformation that in my opinion defaces this site.
So? You can have more than one windmill. It's mainstream now with real advantages and disadvantages, has been for years. Live with the reality instead of attacking it as a political symbol.
Show me a single country that runs on 100% all wind power all the time
Show me a country that runs on 100% gasoline, 100% hydro, 100% whatever - oh wait, such a request is incredibly fucking stupid and ignores the problems of monocultures. How about a sensible discussion instead of the political wank of being a useful idiot attacking what you see as "green" political symbols?
France, which runs on 100% nuclear power for all of its electricity, every day, all the time
Who the fuck fed you that bullshit? The peaking power is not nuclear for a start, there's base load coal at places like Cordemais, there's hydro and there's even tidal hydro at Le Havre that's been running since the 1960s! What an utterly stupid and pathetic bluff - I'm really insulted that you have some much contempt for the people who read your comments that you tried it.
I really don't get why people decide they want to shed 100 points of IQ if there is a political barrow to push.
Ah yes, the trick of taking things to extremes instead of assuming that it's just going to be a portion of the energy mix. Good job. I'm sure The Party may eventually notice your striving against what you see as the symbols of those that oppose The Party. Sorry kid but petty arse licking politics for the sake of it bores me.
You just happened to be the one here the other day regurgitating the same old shit that pisses me off, nothing more than that. I suppose the odds are increased by your inability to learn that it is shit and your willingness to repeatedly regurgitate it in front of others.
Slashdot Mirror
The answer to corrosion is easy - just coat everything in gold.
However there are a very wide range of ways to manage the problem without going to such a stupidly expensive extreme and many actually get easier with scale. You can't bolt an enormous anode to a small boat but a fixed installation on the sea floor is a different story.
I DID use google and it very quickly showed that a single coal fired power station in France has a larger capacity than you suggest is the total for that type of energy generation. You have failed to address that error. Not a lot of "reality" going on I must say and I do not see why you expect to be taken on your word without question after your errors about wind being of no consequence, France with 100% nuclear and now France with an energy mix with coal total less than a single one of their coal fired power plants (although the example I have given is their largest). I'm sure that you are very good at something but you have been very misleading on this topic and have demonstrated a great deal of contempt to the readers here by doing so. It certainly pissed me off despite not having direct involvement in the electricity generating industry since 1998.
The exported stuff is mostly high quality stuff used for steel production, where it's needed to reduce iron oxide to iron, and not the run of the mill coal (of which they have a lot of their own) used to burn to make steam. Now that China is cutting back on steel production that's going to be noticable and you may see some coal mines in trouble.
I'd argue that it was the market protection of steel that started the avalanche. Industries that needed steel and could get it cheaper elsewhere (from places no longer using 1960s technology with a markup to boost profits protected nicely by the government) moved.
Also unintended consequences, and in motion before Nixon implemented environmental policies.
Because those Arabs provide such nice gifts, so nice that we're willing to give them tax breaks and look the other way when they fund things like I.S.
Only some of it. For the rest there's long term storage methods that actually work such as synroc.
It's the pre-emptive dirty debating tactic of getting in first and accusing somebody else of what you yourself are doing so that their accusations look like "no you did that not me" playground arguments.
You see it a lot from the science denial crowd and others with no shame.
They also like to go on about the money spent on climate science as funding propaganda when the reality is wandering science deniers on lecture tours are making more money than any Nobel prize winning scientist ever did.
How else would you describe that wikipedia link other than a technical contribution? It's a bit of reality to show the propaganda is not correct and that the numbers on that page you indicate do not appear to suggest what you say they do.
You attempted to bluff me with a non-english report from many years back but from what French I remember and the coal number being less than even one existing power station it's another bait and switch. Do you have no shame? What is it with politics that makes people throw their normal morality out the window?
Also, I don't know what sort of time wasting bluff you wish to run using page 9, but if it's based on imports and ignoring the coal mines inside France then once again you are showing utter contempt to anyone with the misfortune to read your misleading bullshit. You should be disgusted with your behaviour on this thread - look at what being a useful political idiot attacking anything green has resulted in you writing.
6 to 13 - you lose
China is huge but is on Beijing time, however in regions far from Beijing people set their work times by what is sensible and not by the numbers on the clock.
Most businesses around the world open more than 5 days already have different weekend opening and closing times. Why not different summer and winter operating times?
Those numbers in the PDF make zero sense for national capacity since the "Charbon" amount is less than the capacity at this power station alone:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cordemais_Power_Station
Either you have been misled or you are actively trying to mislead.
Besides, it's just a distraction from your 100% stupidity which strongly indicated that you are and "ends justify the means" type of person with your favourite alternative energy, and once again it does not appear to match reality - even back in 2006 (how pathetic to go back eight years).
You did - 100% for all of France right up there above. It's that sort of misleading political bullshit that is poisoning the minds of the kiddies and you should not be perpetrating it.
Seems to be scoring 5 to 12 then in "null posts" - epic fail at a discussion and even at your own silly game.
Then link to a primary source instead of the fan material that google may be showing - plus that neither makes up for your 100% bluff above or answer how it fits with 76.4% conventional when a single coal fired power station makes up 2%.
Don't shift the goalposts - what I object to is the following:
Except it already is doing so in modern power grids and it has been supplying a large quantity of power for some societies ever since before Don Quixote was written. Those machines were grinding grain and were not just there for decoration.
No, you pity that I'm not an ignorant little boy that cannot see through your bluffs like your "100% nuclear". It's a bit ridiculous that somebody like me who works with coal has to step in when advocates of one alternative energy (nuclear) tell lies to try to pretend another alternative energy (wind) is useless. A sane power grid requires a mix of energy sources, and it certainly doesn't involve 100% base load systems like nuclear. Even kids in high school know better than that until people like you attempt to mislead them.
You failed to refute my points and have written silly distractions instead - shouldn't that put you, Karmashock, on eight null points by your silly rules?
It's a question for you, so not a null post by your silly rules.
How about you attempt to refute my points instead of this silly game of yours? Is that "intellectual" enough for you?
If you don't want to carry out your duty as a citizen, that's fine, you just have to put up with the government chosen by those who did.
Of course with a few quirks like blatant Gerrymanders of course from the State level and other weirdness at the county level that strongly influence who gets in.
Compulsory voting run by an impartial nation wide body is likely to deliver more than two choices in some places and more than the single choice in others. People may actually end up with a government that listens to them instead of what Rupert Murdoch has decided will be on Fox News.
Try this - space travel is hard so you have to put a shitload of effort in and need the resources of a government or similar behind you to progress. So far that has been well and truly worth it and will be in the future, but pretending it's going to be easy is just setting up for "where's my flying car" disappointment.
Gravity is a harsh mistress.
Of course it's a bad week for running spaceflight as a cottage industry instead of something with the expertise of a group like NASA behind the private groups. We've set it to be far too much of a hands off approach and the lack of expertise available for purely political reasons is showing.
We have private nuclear with the involvement of a lot of government experts and government help so why can't we run spaceflight the same way instead of this odd and now tragic experiment in pretend private enterprise? It's not real private enterprise because governments are the main customer and define a major portion of each business.
No exaggeration, no technicality to get out on, no "would you believe two boy scouts and a pen knife" joke - it's an obvious bald faced lie used as a bluff, and then you turn around and make some sort of demand after being caught out in such an obvious lie. How about less politics and less stupid implications like your new one that implies that wind is useless for all purposes if it's not 75% of everything. Less politically motivated "end justifies the means" bullshit and this place would be better for everyone, just like it used to be.
I very much doubt 75% is the case apart from a absolute yearly maximum in the middle of a summer night either considering the size of Cordemais (2.6GW), other coal fired plants and there's 18.2GW of hydro. One site lists France as having 76.4% "conventional capacity", by which they mean non-renewables including nuclear - how the hell can there be only 1.4% coal when one single plant is 2.6GW - that's nearly 2% of France's total capacity.
You seem to have forgotten that this site is visited by people that do not spend their lives coding in basements.
Stupid exaggeration has everything to do with politics. The article mentioned it as part of the energy mix, and FYI biomass generation includes existing gas from sewerage generators - the sort of thing that everybody with every sort of politics used to like until it was seen to be a green political symbol and thus something to attack.
I answer your own questions about paranoia etc and you call it a "null comment"? I'm sorry if I'm ruining your petty little game where you want to put others down for your masturbatory pleasure.
Science is real you misinformation spreading dickhead.
Ah, a new game you want to play at my expense! You get to choose who wins.
How fucking juvenile.
Meanwhile everything I wrote above stands - the current situation is a pushback of scientists and those who do not deny reality against very expensive lying PR funded by people such as Koch and spread by groups like the Heartland Institute. Pretending that it started with the pushback is highly partisan misinformation that in my opinion defaces this site.
It's mainstream now with real advantages and disadvantages, has been for years. Live with the reality instead of attacking it as a political symbol.
Show me a country that runs on 100% gasoline, 100% hydro, 100% whatever - oh wait, such a request is incredibly fucking stupid and ignores the problems of monocultures. How about a sensible discussion instead of the political wank of being a useful idiot attacking what you see as "green" political symbols?
Who the fuck fed you that bullshit? The peaking power is not nuclear for a start, there's base load coal at places like Cordemais, there's hydro and there's even tidal hydro at Le Havre that's been running since the 1960s! What an utterly stupid and pathetic bluff - I'm really insulted that you have some much contempt for the people who read your comments that you tried it.
I really don't get why people decide they want to shed 100 points of IQ if there is a political barrow to push.
Ah yes, the trick of taking things to extremes instead of assuming that it's just going to be a portion of the energy mix. Good job. I'm sure The Party may eventually notice your striving against what you see as the symbols of those that oppose The Party.
Sorry kid but petty arse licking politics for the sake of it bores me.
You just happened to be the one here the other day regurgitating the same old shit that pisses me off, nothing more than that. I suppose the odds are increased by your inability to learn that it is shit and your willingness to repeatedly regurgitate it in front of others.