But they're not being harmed by inadequate equipment, they're being harmed by ridiculous pricing. That's NOT going to be fixed by 5G deployment any more than it was fixed by 4G deployment.
Well, maybe they could worry about amortizing costs of 4G deployment and start offering non-ridiculous prices in the first place before worrying about 5G. Also, "high-tech EU firms" are very unlikely to depend on mobile connection for *all* their communication.
Mostly because 1) things break (often in a way not too difficult to fix manually) and 2) speed of light is insufficient. That seem to be the overwhelming reasons.
I think the point was that the demand is not fixed, so the number of reactors calculated doesn't make any sense whatsoever since it only applies to a hypothetical fixed demand (and not just that, even fixed *local* demand in every single location in the absence of a global power transmission network; merely fixed average global demand would be equally unhelpful). Hence the observation that real-world capacity factor is less than or equal to the theoretical capacity factor is correct.
Please note that the material equivalents are provable bullshit. For example, in the solar case, the cement requirements are ridiculous (there's virtually none necessary in almost all cases, what with roof installations always using metallic structures and ground installations *allowing* for concrete foundations but really using mostly screw installations these days, being much faster and cheaper to install, and especially to clean up afterwards) and the steel requirements are overblown by a factor of five at least.
It's hardly a matter of "what I prefer". Right now, your "cheap energy" has significant costs socialized and pushed into the future (recent estimates are I believe equivalent to extra electricity cost of around $0.15/kWh for CCGT generation or $0.3/kWh for coal). Also, in most places, efficiency measures (the "very expensive things" of yours) are actually the most cost-effective way of reducing the impact of human activity.
Make energy cheap and clean then no one should give a damn on how efficient my house is.
OK, go build a hundred new nukes. Than you can waste energy to your heart's content, cowboy.
No more subsidies!! The government cannot legislate energy independence into being.
Yes, it can.
If you want electric cars to bring the USA into energy independence then build some better electric cars.
I don't actually care about the US the tiniest bit, except for the parts that might affect me like foreign policy.
There is no giving to electric vehicles without taking from somewhere else.
National economies are not zero sum games, so the statement above is blatantly false.
Oh, and where is gas $6/gallon? I took a look at the AAA website and it's under $3/gallon for most of the USA, and under $2.50/gallon for places away from the east and west coasts. I can recall it being around $4.50/gallon once, but that didn't last long.
It surely isn't completely free, but in a country with $6/US gal. gasoline (and no oil production of our own), $0.1/kWh electricity rate for vehicles, and half the average income compared to the US, it would make perfect sense for our country to subsidize it, as it would pay for itself in energy independence quite quickly. Even Level 1 equipment is perfectly suitable for the V1G application in question; even a bog-standard single phase 230V plug can push 3.5 kW here.
There are two ways of constructing a software design: One way is to make it so simple that there are obviously no deficiencies, and the other way is to make it so complicated that there are no obvious deficiencies. I guess they picked the latter way.
How many people drive their car throughout the whole day, every day? Professional drivers, maybe? But those would be taken care of, presumably. A major portion of the population would be served by daytime charging just fine.
Slashdot Mirror
But they're not being harmed by inadequate equipment, they're being harmed by ridiculous pricing. That's NOT going to be fixed by 5G deployment any more than it was fixed by 4G deployment.
Well, maybe they could worry about amortizing costs of 4G deployment and start offering non-ridiculous prices in the first place before worrying about 5G. Also, "high-tech EU firms" are very unlikely to depend on mobile connection for *all* their communication.
And bondage, domination and sadism are the solutions?
the philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy
Also known as MAGA?
So that your MAGA bomber van down by the river could have dynamic messages on its side?
Why do you need to crew a spacecraft?
Mostly because 1) things break (often in a way not too difficult to fix manually) and 2) speed of light is insufficient. That seem to be the overwhelming reasons.
The Social Security numbers (or directly translated from Swedish, the Personal Number), are not considered secret in Sweden
Presumably because Sweden doesn't have Social Security?
Oops, "material requirements", obviously.
I think the point was that the demand is not fixed, so the number of reactors calculated doesn't make any sense whatsoever since it only applies to a hypothetical fixed demand (and not just that, even fixed *local* demand in every single location in the absence of a global power transmission network; merely fixed average global demand would be equally unhelpful). Hence the observation that real-world capacity factor is less than or equal to the theoretical capacity factor is correct.
This web page shows some numbers to back that up: http://cmo-ripu.blogspot.com/2... [blogspot.com],
Please note that the material equivalents are provable bullshit. For example, in the solar case, the cement requirements are ridiculous (there's virtually none necessary in almost all cases, what with roof installations always using metallic structures and ground installations *allowing* for concrete foundations but really using mostly screw installations these days, being much faster and cheaper to install, and especially to clean up afterwards) and the steel requirements are overblown by a factor of five at least.
Why, does it give you a meltdown?
This is pretty much exactly the OPPOSITE of ironic.
Rustic?
So you would prefer extremely expensive energy?
It's hardly a matter of "what I prefer". Right now, your "cheap energy" has significant costs socialized and pushed into the future (recent estimates are I believe equivalent to extra electricity cost of around $0.15/kWh for CCGT generation or $0.3/kWh for coal). Also, in most places, efficiency measures (the "very expensive things" of yours) are actually the most cost-effective way of reducing the impact of human activity.
Make energy cheap and clean then no one should give a damn on how efficient my house is.
OK, go build a hundred new nukes. Than you can waste energy to your heart's content, cowboy.
No more subsidies!! The government cannot legislate energy independence into being.
Yes, it can.
If you want electric cars to bring the USA into energy independence then build some better electric cars.
I don't actually care about the US the tiniest bit, except for the parts that might affect me like foreign policy.
There is no giving to electric vehicles without taking from somewhere else.
National economies are not zero sum games, so the statement above is blatantly false.
Oh, and where is gas $6/gallon? I took a look at the AAA website and it's under $3/gallon for most of the USA, and under $2.50/gallon for places away from the east and west coasts. I can recall it being around $4.50/gallon once, but that didn't last long.
Most of Europe.
Perhaps it was confusing because it's difficult to imagine a UK event receiving payment in dollars.
(Also, in light of Spectre and Meltdown, I *won't* fix the typo.)
"IBM on Why Intel Won't Win the Server Space 2: Electric Bugaloo"
He didn't?
Yes, you're 101% correct.
As taught in Logic 101(%) courses.
It surely isn't completely free, but in a country with $6/US gal. gasoline (and no oil production of our own), $0.1/kWh electricity rate for vehicles, and half the average income compared to the US, it would make perfect sense for our country to subsidize it, as it would pay for itself in energy independence quite quickly. Even Level 1 equipment is perfectly suitable for the V1G application in question; even a bog-standard single phase 230V plug can push 3.5 kW here.
These things are generally symptoms of permissive building codes and extremely cheap energy. Ever heard of Passivhaus?
There are two ways of constructing a software design: One way is to make it so simple that there are obviously no deficiencies, and the other way is to make it so complicated that there are no obvious deficiencies. I guess they picked the latter way.
If you have a "15 kW electric backup heat" in your house, you're probably doing something wrong.
How many people drive their car throughout the whole day, every day? Professional drivers, maybe? But those would be taken care of, presumably. A major portion of the population would be served by daytime charging just fine.
Do you want to go back to the computer you used in the early 90s? Because that's what you're going to get if you remove it entirely
I'm not really sure that the computer I used in the early 90s had thousands of cores enabled by sub-20nm lithography.