Then what on earth are you basing that 20% on if you are writing about nothing other than nukes and renewables? Do you really know so little about electricity demand? From my experience when children are taken on field trips to power stations they know about the large difference between peak and base load before they even get there. That was in the 1990s when I had to answer their questions, but surely things have not declined so much between then and when you went to school?
really does understand not only how the world works but is especially excellent at negotiation and hiring good talent.
If you actually think that instead of singing the praises of The Party Leader like a good Komrade then you are definitely not getting out much. Turns out his treasury "talent" forgot about more than 100 million the other day.
The Chinese are more interested in the personal than the position. They are more likely to take Trump's insults as his word instead of dismissing his bullshit as "locker room banter". Imperial Japan was different in a lot of ways, but the lesson of rattling sabres at them too many times resulting in the Pearl Harbor attack still applies. What we see as bluffs and bluster can be seen as serious threats that must be addressed for fear of being seen as being weak domestically and being in danger of being replaced. If (ok, being stupid here, it has to be "when") Trump insults Xi personally then Xi has to take some sort of action or he'll soon lose his hold on power as someone else steps up to replace the "weak" leader. I can see it escalating to a cold war and proxy war level very quickly. Sadly that trust fund baby draft dodger just does not have a fucking clue about it.
As did every single Republican and most of the Democrats.
As secretary of state, she supported the intervention in Libya
As President, Reagan bombed Libya.
She advocated for deeper American involvement in Syria
So did McCain and many many others.
Now she doesn't matter. It's those many many others who wanted to act the same way who are still in power are the ones you should be taking to task unless you don't care about being seen as hopelessly partisan and amoral.
entertainment value
Get back to me in a year and let's see if you think that entertainment was worth it.
It's over. No point rabbiting on about warmonger Hillary wanting to kill Ghadaffi (just like Reagan) while peaceful Trump put up a tent for him in his back yard.
A really bizzare thing is getting pop-up ads (dunno how it made it past the blocker) about "video proof - how Hillary rigged the election". She lost months ago - who are the fucking tools paying money for this shit?
The other problem is that Europe is pretty small, we tend to have the same weather over large parts of the continent
Are you really taking that line to charge against windmills?
Take a look at this: https://www.meteoblue.com/en/weather/map/wind/europe Now you know and can no longer act like a totally ignorant idiot without being an outright liar as well.
For a while you could download Solaris for SPARC as a completely legit free for any use thing. I put it on a couple of machines I picked up at auction to run legacy software (stuff that used to run on a SparcStation5 really flies on a new SPARC) and tape libraries. Maybe it's still a download and not something to order.
A lot of serious Linux users, who need systems that are reliable and robust, have had to switch to FreeBSD thanks to systemd
Rubbish - although I utterly despise that flaky piece of shit of a mismanaged moving target SystemD that's not what has happened. We've just put up with using older versions of linux. When the experiment is over we'll upgrade. The move to FreeBSD is just due to ZFS being a lot more mature on that platform at the moment. If you have a lot of disks it's a massive incentive to move. If you don't it just looks like linux with less device drivers, so there's not so much incentive.
We could probably model it with the hardware we have now (I'm not suggesting anything close to realtime) if we had a better idea of what we are trying to model. There is a lot of electrochemical weirdness going on where tiny traces of things appear to mean something.
Throwing a shitload of computing power at a problem doesn't work unless you have far more than a vague idea of what you are trying to simulate.
If we had a magic SF computer available asking "what do you want me to do Dave?" we still have to have gotten to the point where we know what the problem is we want it to solve.
Scotland's emissions dropped a massive amount a few decades ago back when Thatcher used the one-off North Sea oil windfall to finance a transition from a UK wide manufacturing economy to a Southern England financial services economy. Scotland and the UK in general had not recovered yet. So there are not a lot of emissions to cut which doesn't make it a very difficult job.
Hush - the Republicans try to pretend Nixon didn't exist, what with the clean air act and all that stuff. The ones that they admit to didn't build nukes.
Let me rephrase that - do you seriously think the peak load is only 20% higher than the base load? If you do why are you commenting on this topic as if you knew as much or more than the average high schooler about the topic?
The infrastructure is already there. If you wish to advocate nukes attacking wind with a silly "the wind isn't blowing" when it is blowing in a lot of other places connected by that grid is counterproductive. Wind has a niche - peak power. Nukes have a niche - base load.
This problem of the high cost of nuclear power lies mostly in satisfying the regulations put upon the nuclear power industry.
Incorrect. Nuclear power also has a very high capital cost in China it is just that they have the will and patience to bear the cost and wait for the returns. What you have written is relaying a poor excuse aimed at removing some regulations mostly to do with operating very old plant and it has nothing at all to do with the issue.
Making the price of nuclear power cheaper than coal
For very large installations it may already be there, a lot of people certainly keep on telling me so, but that does not matter when the people putting up the money are only taking a short term approach. Coal, hydro, solar thermal etc - those other things with high capital costs and slow returns are also suffering the same fate.
those costs are more easily absorbed with a smaller reactor
The reactors are only a part of the cost, plus also the small ones do not scale down in cost very well. A lot of tiny little reactors to get enough steam to drive some large turbines to make it worth having nukes at all is currently going to be a lot more expensive than a few big reactors. People have been working on that idea of a lot of little reactors since TMI because little reactors are not going to melt down. While your dream is nice it hinges on government being the problem - unfortunately reality has other ideas when nukes are used in situations where government has completely got out of the way. A mass produced nuke depends on a lot of R&D (especially development) to have something worth mass producing first. We're not going to get there with just a dream, especially with accountants telling us R&D has zero budget. I see finance to solve the real problems as being a vastly more difficult problem than rent seekers whining about the red tape they need to cope with before they can get a handout to continue to run their 1970s plant.
Perhaps look at something more technical instead of propaganda from rentseekers that just want to cut the cost on their old nukes and have no intention of building new ones - that propaganda is written by marketing folk with less scientific or engineering grounding than yourself. Of course they are going to blame regulations and stuff, they don't know shit about physics because they never went near it in school or after.
When the construction dust clears, we will see a nuclear China with about 20% renewables.
The peaks are a lot higher than base load. You don't use nukes for peak capacity. If you have nukes you use them every second you can. Based on those two bits of information that you should already have known but somehow failed to consider, how does that estimate look now? There no point dumbing things down to a Star Trek view of energy since we do not have perfect batteries, the problem has to be considered in terms of matching supply to a demand curve. High school level thought instead of first grade level.
Selective omission. It creates a false impression that the only replacement power is renewables without mentioning additional nuclear capacity that presumably will also make up for the loss of this coal power.
It's not just hydro, some people put nukes under the banner of renewables as well. There may not be a lot of breeder reactors active today but they are a reasonable reason to put all nukes under that banner. Don't blame me, I don't do it but I can see where they are coming from.
Replacing their nucleair power with wind/solar is naïve and unrealistic at best
You have that backwards, for whether you like nukes or not the current economic reality there is that replacing the old nukes with new news is unrealistic due to the huge capital outlays and long lead times. Small stuff can be financed a bit of at a time (and comes online in less than a year to start paying it's way) even if it adds up to costing far more in the end. It's only where someone can tell the accountants to shut up or go to the Gulag, instead of saying "yes boss" like we do in most of the west currently, where you can build things with huge capital costs such as nukes. If you like nukes look to the east. Nobody has the stomach for them where short term profits trump everything else.
Line losses are very low these days so the number of people per area doesn't really matter as far as electricity generation goes. Try using Canada as an example and it should be easy to grasp. They have huge hydro plants in sparsely populated areas but that doesn't matter when there is a big city at the end of the wire.
France doesn't
Did you really forget the whole ridiculous "freedom fries thing" where Saddam was supposed to have been supplied with Uranium by the French out of their former colony of Niger? Here is more with a specific mention of the Uranium issue: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/France%E2%80%93Niger_relations
Slashdot Mirror
Then what on earth are you basing that 20% on if you are writing about nothing other than nukes and renewables? Do you really know so little about electricity demand? From my experience when children are taken on field trips to power stations they know about the large difference between peak and base load before they even get there. That was in the 1990s when I had to answer their questions, but surely things have not declined so much between then and when you went to school?
If you actually think that instead of singing the praises of The Party Leader like a good Komrade then you are definitely not getting out much.
Turns out his treasury "talent" forgot about more than 100 million the other day.
Nowhere enough time for enough PEEOTUS jokes.
The Chinese are more interested in the personal than the position. They are more likely to take Trump's insults as his word instead of dismissing his bullshit as "locker room banter".
Imperial Japan was different in a lot of ways, but the lesson of rattling sabres at them too many times resulting in the Pearl Harbor attack still applies. What we see as bluffs and bluster can be seen as serious threats that must be addressed for fear of being seen as being weak domestically and being in danger of being replaced.
If (ok, being stupid here, it has to be "when") Trump insults Xi personally then Xi has to take some sort of action or he'll soon lose his hold on power as someone else steps up to replace the "weak" leader. I can see it escalating to a cold war and proxy war level very quickly. Sadly that trust fund baby draft dodger just does not have a fucking clue about it.
As did every single Republican and most of the Democrats.
As President, Reagan bombed Libya.
So did McCain and many many others.
Now she doesn't matter. It's those many many others who wanted to act the same way who are still in power are the ones you should be taking to task unless you don't care about being seen as hopelessly partisan and amoral.
Get back to me in a year and let's see if you think that entertainment was worth it.
It's over. No point rabbiting on about warmonger Hillary wanting to kill Ghadaffi (just like Reagan) while peaceful Trump put up a tent for him in his back yard.
A really bizzare thing is getting pop-up ads (dunno how it made it past the blocker) about "video proof - how Hillary rigged the election". She lost months ago - who are the fucking tools paying money for this shit?
Are you really taking that line to charge against windmills?
Take a look at this:
https://www.meteoblue.com/en/weather/map/wind/europe
Now you know and can no longer act like a totally ignorant idiot without being an outright liar as well.
For a while you could download Solaris for SPARC as a completely legit free for any use thing. I put it on a couple of machines I picked up at auction to run legacy software (stuff that used to run on a SparcStation5 really flies on a new SPARC) and tape libraries. Maybe it's still a download and not something to order.
Rubbish - although I utterly despise that flaky piece of shit of a mismanaged moving target SystemD that's not what has happened.
We've just put up with using older versions of linux. When the experiment is over we'll upgrade.
The move to FreeBSD is just due to ZFS being a lot more mature on that platform at the moment. If you have a lot of disks it's a massive incentive to move. If you don't it just looks like linux with less device drivers, so there's not so much incentive.
We could probably model it with the hardware we have now (I'm not suggesting anything close to realtime) if we had a better idea of what we are trying to model. There is a lot of electrochemical weirdness going on where tiny traces of things appear to mean something.
Throwing a shitload of computing power at a problem doesn't work unless you have far more than a vague idea of what you are trying to simulate.
If we had a magic SF computer available asking "what do you want me to do Dave?" we still have to have gotten to the point where we know what the problem is we want it to solve.
Scotland's emissions dropped a massive amount a few decades ago back when Thatcher used the one-off North Sea oil windfall to finance a transition from a UK wide manufacturing economy to a Southern England financial services economy.
Scotland and the UK in general had not recovered yet.
So there are not a lot of emissions to cut which doesn't make it a very difficult job.
Isn't it lucky that people in the 1950s did most of the work for us.
And Nixon! He "built" 1000 nukes https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Hush - the Republicans try to pretend Nixon didn't exist, what with the clean air act and all that stuff.
The ones that they admit to didn't build nukes.
Let me rephrase that - do you seriously think the peak load is only 20% higher than the base load?
If you do why are you commenting on this topic as if you knew as much or more than the average high schooler about the topic?
Are you not including hydro in renewables?
The infrastructure is already there.
If you wish to advocate nukes attacking wind with a silly "the wind isn't blowing" when it is blowing in a lot of other places connected by that grid is counterproductive.
Wind has a niche - peak power.
Nukes have a niche - base load.
Incorrect. Nuclear power also has a very high capital cost in China it is just that they have the will and patience to bear the cost and wait for the returns. What you have written is relaying a poor excuse aimed at removing some regulations mostly to do with operating very old plant and it has nothing at all to do with the issue.
For very large installations it may already be there, a lot of people certainly keep on telling me so, but that does not matter when the people putting up the money are only taking a short term approach. Coal, hydro, solar thermal etc - those other things with high capital costs and slow returns are also suffering the same fate.
The reactors are only a part of the cost, plus also the small ones do not scale down in cost very well. A lot of tiny little reactors to get enough steam to drive some large turbines to make it worth having nukes at all is currently going to be a lot more expensive than a few big reactors. People have been working on that idea of a lot of little reactors since TMI because little reactors are not going to melt down. While your dream is nice it hinges on government being the problem - unfortunately reality has other ideas when nukes are used in situations where government has completely got out of the way. A mass produced nuke depends on a lot of R&D (especially development) to have something worth mass producing first. We're not going to get there with just a dream, especially with accountants telling us R&D has zero budget. I see finance to solve the real problems as being a vastly more difficult problem than rent seekers whining about the red tape they need to cope with before they can get a handout to continue to run their 1970s plant.
Perhaps look at something more technical instead of propaganda from rentseekers that just want to cut the cost on their old nukes and have no intention of building new ones - that propaganda is written by marketing folk with less scientific or engineering grounding than yourself. Of course they are going to blame regulations and stuff, they don't know shit about physics because they never went near it in school or after.
You have not been paying attention at all. The issue is fear of rendition and not extradition.
Yes just like Reagan, Bush and Bush did - oh wait, all words no action on nukes.
The peaks are a lot higher than base load.
You don't use nukes for peak capacity. If you have nukes you use them every second you can.
Based on those two bits of information that you should already have known but somehow failed to consider, how does that estimate look now?
There no point dumbing things down to a Star Trek view of energy since we do not have perfect batteries, the problem has to be considered in terms of matching supply to a demand curve. High school level thought instead of first grade level.
Fair enough, but citing Forbes - fuck! You can do better. You already know better than most of the journalists for that thing.
It's not just hydro, some people put nukes under the banner of renewables as well. There may not be a lot of breeder reactors active today but they are a reasonable reason to put all nukes under that banner.
Don't blame me, I don't do it but I can see where they are coming from.
Consider a grid and you'll be taken a bit more seriously.
You have that backwards, for whether you like nukes or not the current economic reality there is that replacing the old nukes with new news is unrealistic due to the huge capital outlays and long lead times. Small stuff can be financed a bit of at a time (and comes online in less than a year to start paying it's way) even if it adds up to costing far more in the end.
It's only where someone can tell the accountants to shut up or go to the Gulag, instead of saying "yes boss" like we do in most of the west currently, where you can build things with huge capital costs such as nukes.
If you like nukes look to the east. Nobody has the stomach for them where short term profits trump everything else.
Did you really forget the whole ridiculous "freedom fries thing" where Saddam was supposed to have been supplied with Uranium by the French out of their former colony of Niger?
Here is more with a specific mention of the Uranium issue:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/France%E2%80%93Niger_relations