Aternatively, the first working version of Racket-on-Chez-Scheme just came out. Now if only they removed that Chez's pesky all-flonums-are-boxed limitation... There's really no need for that.
Gee amazing how the more " RENEWABLES " a country has the more expensive its power has become.
Gee, amazing how the more expensive power is in a country, the more motivated the country is to install renewable generators. See how it works both ways?
And yes when I think of France a country that had the lowest energy prices in Europe
You really have no idea how outrageously low the energy costs in the US have historically been, do you? Otherwise you wouldn't be asking such stupid questions.
And your point with that is...what, that Germany developed identically to the rest of Europe in the time period in question (first chart), thus doing nothing significantly worse than other European countries? Or that German prices are only slightly higher than in other EU countries, even before accounting for Germans' much higher purchasing power (second chart)? Or what exactly are you trying to prove?
Kind of funny how the U.S. was able to reduce the cost of electricity
Thus proving my claim about the cheap natural resources available in the US (fracking, currently).
while in Germany it tripled
I'm pretty sure the average price of electricity in Germany hasn't tripled - unless you somehow ignored inflation and used nominal values only (according to this breakdown, for example, in the 12-year 2006-2018 period, the residential prices have increased roughly from 24 to 29 real cents per kWh (2018 value)). But you haven't really pointed out any such data, so it's difficult to divine what you're going off of.
Textbooks cost far too much for something the student will use briefly.
But that's a US problem; most of the world does not have a problem with publisherS being in bed with educators. So it's basically a non-issue due to its artificial nature.
3 is wrong, though. Autopilot is autopilot, that is an obvious tautology. And regarding wind and solar...why don't the numbers match? Do Chileans lie? Or Lazard?
They are after all rioting over the increased taxes to pay for all that green power
What does even mean?:-p
While we are here lets look at the cost of electricity in Europe
It has always been higher than in the US, thanks to US' massive and cheaply exploitable natural resources and low population. If that is news to you, then let me be the first person to welcome you to this planet. I hope you come in peace!
The fact that you can force people to use these at gun point doesn't make them a good idea.
No, but the unprecedented price drops do.
As my list demonstrated without subidies on top of supsidies they still wind up being little more than nothing but a good way to divert money to political allies.
As your list demonstrared, you can cherrypick inconsequential failing companies really well! Not sure what other purposes would that serve, though.
France is showing the world that you can only go so far with this.
Exactly. The only thing that France is showing the world these days is that you can only go so far with this when even a nuclear superpower can barely afford nuclear electricity. Without monstrously huge subsidies to their military-industrial complex in the past, they would be even worse off today than some other countries in Europe that at least still have coal. They've just realized that, too, and they're looking for a way out.
that some people can have things spoon fed them and still deny anything they see
Anything they see, such as the annual PV installations exceeding 100 GW and STILL increasing exponentially? That alone defeats your cherry-picked list of small inconsequential companies, but as you say, even spoon-feeding you with information won't make you see the light.
What nobody seems to be willing to recognize is that the current designs of nuclear reactors are expensive to build operate and maintain, but that it doesn't have to be that way. There are simpler, safer designs I've heard and read about that would make it less expensive to build operate and maintain
What you don't seem to be willing to recognize that this is EXACTLY the thing that led to the negative learning curve. ALL of the "let's make it cheaper!" efforts in the past have resulted in making it MORE expensive, including the most recent AP1000 or EPR efforts. I wish as much as anyone for it to be different this time, but the chances are rather slim.
By the way, Einstein was no Einstein in school, and not really a very good mathematician.
Well, I'm just going to assume you are a budding Einstein. Maybe it will allow you to discover how to learn so that you don't parrot that old rubbish the next time the way you just did!
The obvious problem with thermal solar is the same as with concentrating photovoltaics: it's useful in a vastly smaller subset of locations than PV solar.
Slashdot Mirror
Aternatively, the first working version of Racket-on-Chez-Scheme just came out. Now if only they removed that Chez's pesky all-flonums-are-boxed limitation... There's really no need for that.
Gee, amazing how the more expensive power is in a country, the more motivated the country is to install renewable generators. See how it works both ways? And yes when I think of France a country that had the lowest energy prices in Europe
Only an ignorant who doesn't live here could say bullshit like that. "Lowest energy prices in Europe", my ass!
"Slashdot asks: Is posting fresh stories a sustainable business model?"
It has always been ?
You really have no idea how outrageously low the energy costs in the US have historically been, do you? Otherwise you wouldn't be asking such stupid questions.
https://www.eurotrib.com/story/2013/7/2/174936/9080
And your point with that is...what, that Germany developed identically to the rest of Europe in the time period in question (first chart), thus doing nothing significantly worse than other European countries? Or that German prices are only slightly higher than in other EU countries, even before accounting for Germans' much higher purchasing power (second chart)? Or what exactly are you trying to prove?
Kind of funny how the U.S. was able to reduce the cost of electricity
Thus proving my claim about the cheap natural resources available in the US (fracking, currently).
while in Germany it tripled
I'm pretty sure the average price of electricity in Germany hasn't tripled - unless you somehow ignored inflation and used nominal values only (according to this breakdown, for example, in the 12-year 2006-2018 period, the residential prices have increased roughly from 24 to 29 real cents per kWh (2018 value)). But you haven't really pointed out any such data, so it's difficult to divine what you're going off of.
That depends. Which St Petersburg?
44% of Indian children are malnourished. 72% of Indian infants are anemic.
And the solution is "let them eat iPhones"?
Sure...if you see racist undertones in everything.
Textbooks cost far too much for something the student will use briefly.
But that's a US problem; most of the world does not have a problem with publisherS being in bed with educators. So it's basically a non-issue due to its artificial nature.
It may not be safe but it's obviously an autopilot. Partial truth does not cancel out the falsehood in any statement.
Possibly. But corruption can come in through both doors.
rare-earth minerals
Hahahaha....nope. Nothing rare about silicon.
Isn't the most plausible explanation the one where the sibling is not actually a sibling?
3 is wrong, though. Autopilot is autopilot, that is an obvious tautology. And regarding wind and solar...why don't the numbers match? Do Chileans lie? Or Lazard?
as
The US has amply shown that even with a civil society there is nothing to stop nepotism and corruption either.
Two "movements" that go great together.
Bowel movements?
A filthy leftist rag told him!
They are after all rioting over the increased taxes to pay for all that green power
What does even mean? :-p
While we are here lets look at the cost of electricity in Europe
It has always been higher than in the US, thanks to US' massive and cheaply exploitable natural resources and low population. If that is news to you, then let me be the first person to welcome you to this planet. I hope you come in peace!
The fact that you can force people to use these at gun point doesn't make them a good idea.
No, but the unprecedented price drops do.
As my list demonstrated without subidies on top of supsidies they still wind up being little more than nothing but a good way to divert money to political allies.
As your list demonstrared, you can cherrypick inconsequential failing companies really well! Not sure what other purposes would that serve, though.
France is showing the world that you can only go so far with this.
Exactly. The only thing that France is showing the world these days is that you can only go so far with this when even a nuclear superpower can barely afford nuclear electricity. Without monstrously huge subsidies to their military-industrial complex in the past, they would be even worse off today than some other countries in Europe that at least still have coal. They've just realized that, too, and they're looking for a way out.
that some people can have things spoon fed them and still deny anything they see
Anything they see, such as the annual PV installations exceeding 100 GW and STILL increasing exponentially? That alone defeats your cherry-picked list of small inconsequential companies, but as you say, even spoon-feeding you with information won't make you see the light.
Why the fuck didn't you just make things simple and penalize the people who aren't doing what you want them to do from the start?
Presumably because the previous generation was too stupid.
What nobody seems to be willing to recognize is that the current designs of nuclear reactors are expensive to build operate and maintain, but that it doesn't have to be that way. There are simpler, safer designs I've heard and read about that would make it less expensive to build operate and maintain
What you don't seem to be willing to recognize that this is EXACTLY the thing that led to the negative learning curve. ALL of the "let's make it cheaper!" efforts in the past have resulted in making it MORE expensive, including the most recent AP1000 or EPR efforts. I wish as much as anyone for it to be different this time, but the chances are rather slim.
If you can accept that God exists in the first place, then the evidence is straightforward: The world exists, therefore God chose to create it.
...or someone created it for him. Lack of imagination, perhaps?
By the way, Einstein was no Einstein in school, and not really a very good mathematician.
Well, I'm just going to assume you are a budding Einstein. Maybe it will allow you to discover how to learn so that you don't parrot that old rubbish the next time the way you just did!
Why? Any 'math' either side of the issue presents is based on theories and statistics that may or may not represent the future.
True; actual development has show us that nuclear has a negative learning curve, renewables have positive learning curve, and the growth is constantly underestimated. So, yes, the future seems to be rather clear, save for some kind of unpredictable revolution that can't be counted on.
The obvious problem with thermal solar is the same as with concentrating photovoltaics: it's useful in a vastly smaller subset of locations than PV solar.
To illustrate the ordering of the attributes, what else?