We have a dense network of railways (9500 km of rails covering 78000 km^2) and bus lines. I live at a bus stop. I don't need any car at all. It's very liberating, actually.
I don't see any proof of the theorem in there. What is displayed on that page is a special case. Just like Fermat's last theorem was proven in 1995 but that it holds true for the special case of n=4 was proven already by Fermat.
I'm not missing it, it's included in the capacity factor. But you don't necessarily have to run 100% on solar panels in extreme regions. Shipped fuel is typical for remote communities anyway.
less than four times the maximum global insolation
I've apparently mixed my comparisons when figuring out how to phrase it best; as written, it obviously makes no sense. This should have read "less than one fourth the maximum global insolation". Or alternatively, "less then four times worse than the maximum global insolation".
Not arguing against solar - just the claim that it is available anywhere on earth.
Even those places are actually included in the "not more than four times worse than the best places" estimate. Their real problem, as you point out, is the seasonal variation.
nuclear is better than most renewables [world-nuclear.org]
Are you referring to the passage reading
Comparing the economics of different forms of electricity generation
In 2017 the US EIA published figures for the average levelised costs per unit of output (LCOE) for generating technologies to be brought online in 2022, as modelled for its Annual Energy Outlook. These show: advanced nuclear, 9.9 c/kWh; natural gas, 5.7-10.9 c/kWh (depending on technology); and coal with 90% carbon sequestration, 12.3 c/kWh (rising to 14 c/kWh at 30%). Among the non-dispatchable technologies, LCOE estimates vary widely: wind onshore, 5.2 c/kWh; solar PV, 6.7 c/kWh; offshore wind, 14.6 c/kWh; and solar thermal, 18.4 c/kWh.
? Since "most renewables" in terms of capacity installed actually means "solar PV, onshore wind, and hydro" (the last of which isn't quantified in that list but is usually very cheap), I don't see how your claim is supported by your source, especially in a view ~20 years into the future where even these figures will be considered hilarious.
Not to even mention that solar doesn't scale all that well, because there are too many regions where there isn't enough sun
Actually, solar power is the most equally distributed power there is. You won't find ANY region (not a hole in the ground) in the world where there is, say, less than four times the maximum global insolation of ~2700 kWh/m^2. So even the worst place is less four times worse than the best one. Compared to this, even wind variations are much higher. And fossil fuel sites are even more unevenly distributed.
The Contracting States shall not impose penalties, on account of their illegal entry or presence, on refugees who, coming directly from a territory where their life or freedom was threatened in the sense of article 1, enter or are present in their territory without authorization, provided they present themselves without delay to the authorities and show good cause for their illegal entry or presence
So merely entering the country illegally is not a justification to arrest an asylum seeker. This is justified in the introduction by saying that
subject to specific exceptions, refugees should not be penalized for their illegal entry or stay. This recognizes that the seeking of asylum can require refugees to breach immigration rules. Prohibited penalties might include being charged with immigration or criminal offences relating to the seeking of asylum, or being arbitrarily detained purely on the basis of seeking asylum.
To my understanding, the US implemented this by interpreting "without delay" as "within a one year period".
AMD doesn't "claim" 30-40%, these are Cinebench results by Ryzen users (Cinema 4D core with a preset scene, ergo some FP SSE/AVX code, vector/scalar ratio unknown, spatial tree traversal presumably frequent).
I know it is a primary cell. I think it just shows that perhaps not all is lost for secondary cells regarding the potential to improve. Of course you'll never reach jet fuel levels but I think the issue is practicality. For many applications, even the worse weight of batteries could be offset by the benefits of having fewer mechanical stuff to maintain and repair. Perhaps just not in airplanes... Unless something like powering airplanes from the orbit becomes feasible. Or even from the ground on large landmasses.
Slashdot Mirror
Except it doesn't, and it's not.
Any rational argument for that aside from your childish whining?
It's just magical in your mind I'm sure.
What?
Looks like another special case?
We have a dense network of railways (9500 km of rails covering 78000 km^2) and bus lines. I live at a bus stop. I don't need any car at all. It's very liberating, actually.
and a lifetime of no more than 150k miles.. maybe 200k miles.
Leaf also has insanely fast battery degradation, which makes the "cheaper" argument debatable if a Tesla lasts several times longer.
You make it sound like it's somewhere even in a remote ballpark of 100%. Reality is, it's in low single digits in northern climes during winter.
While in the summer, it can cover a major amount of the electricity consumed. Still worth it.
You're talking ~million people metropolises.
Yeah, about that...the northernmost one is at the 60N latitude. Solar conditions slightly better than in Berlin, actually.
I don't see any proof of the theorem in there. What is displayed on that page is a special case. Just like Fermat's last theorem was proven in 1995 but that it holds true for the special case of n=4 was proven already by Fermat.
To my knowledge, the Chinese only had proven certain special cases.
There are still programmers who optimize at that level
Usually using compilers capable of handling data dependencies, though.
I'm not missing it, it's included in the capacity factor. But you don't necessarily have to run 100% on solar panels in extreme regions. Shipped fuel is typical for remote communities anyway.
less than four times the maximum global insolation
I've apparently mixed my comparisons when figuring out how to phrase it best; as written, it obviously makes no sense. This should have read "less than one fourth the maximum global insolation". Or alternatively, "less then four times worse than the maximum global insolation".
Not arguing against solar - just the claim that it is available anywhere on earth.
Even those places are actually included in the "not more than four times worse than the best places" estimate. Their real problem, as you point out, is the seasonal variation.
Try working out how many solar panels are required to power equipment north of the arctic circle -- all year round.
Only a few, on account of hardly anybody living there.
nuclear is better than most renewables [world-nuclear.org]
Are you referring to the passage reading
Comparing the economics of different forms of electricity generation
In 2017 the US EIA published figures for the average levelised costs per unit of output (LCOE) for generating technologies to be brought online in 2022, as modelled for its Annual Energy Outlook. These show: advanced nuclear, 9.9 c/kWh; natural gas, 5.7-10.9 c/kWh (depending on technology); and coal with 90% carbon sequestration, 12.3 c/kWh (rising to 14 c/kWh at 30%). Among the non-dispatchable technologies, LCOE estimates vary widely: wind onshore, 5.2 c/kWh; solar PV, 6.7 c/kWh; offshore wind, 14.6 c/kWh; and solar thermal, 18.4 c/kWh.
? Since "most renewables" in terms of capacity installed actually means "solar PV, onshore wind, and hydro" (the last of which isn't quantified in that list but is usually very cheap), I don't see how your claim is supported by your source, especially in a view ~20 years into the future where even these figures will be considered hilarious.
I hate to break it to you, but silicon manufacturing is heavily skewed towards direct electricity use (e.g., the Siemens process).
Not to even mention that solar doesn't scale all that well, because there are too many regions where there isn't enough sun
Actually, solar power is the most equally distributed power there is. You won't find ANY region (not a hole in the ground) in the world where there is, say, less than four times the maximum global insolation of ~2700 kWh/m^2. So even the worst place is less four times worse than the best one. Compared to this, even wind variations are much higher. And fossil fuel sites are even more unevenly distributed.
"From Existing Generation Resources"
It's a pity, then, than we can't build more "existing generation resources". Because the new nukes are expensive as fuck.
What are they going to do, fractional distillation?
You mean something like thermal depolymerization?
The Contracting States shall not impose penalties, on account of their illegal entry or presence, on refugees who, coming directly from a territory where their life or freedom was threatened in the sense of article 1, enter or are present in their territory without authorization, provided they present themselves without delay to the authorities and show good cause for their illegal entry or presence
So merely entering the country illegally is not a justification to arrest an asylum seeker. This is justified in the introduction by saying that
subject to specific exceptions, refugees should not be penalized for their illegal entry or stay. This recognizes that the seeking of asylum can require refugees to breach immigration rules. Prohibited penalties might include being charged with immigration or criminal offences relating to the seeking of asylum, or being arbitrarily detained purely on the basis of seeking asylum.
To my understanding, the US implemented this by interpreting "without delay" as "within a one year period".
Ten meters away from my door... Total non-issue.
They are breaking the law if they enter the US before obtaining asylum.
As far as I understand the situation, that statement is false thanks to certain international treaties the US is a signatory to.
So, basically, it's just as it has been since 1973
And that's an excuse for trying to make it even worse?
for a non-violent crime
Like stabbing? ;)
is implicitly saying
Highly debatable.
AMD doesn't "claim" 30-40%, these are Cinebench results by Ryzen users (Cinema 4D core with a preset scene, ergo some FP SSE/AVX code, vector/scalar ratio unknown, spatial tree traversal presumably frequent).
I know it is a primary cell. I think it just shows that perhaps not all is lost for secondary cells regarding the potential to improve. Of course you'll never reach jet fuel levels but I think the issue is practicality. For many applications, even the worse weight of batteries could be offset by the benefits of having fewer mechanical stuff to maintain and repair. Perhaps just not in airplanes... Unless something like powering airplanes from the orbit becomes feasible. Or even from the ground on large landmasses.