You are strongly advised to get a teacher, the stuff you do is just nonsense. Why the heck would your example function Concatenate_m call "free" on any of its arguments?
That is not true for modern processors and modern C. Structs will always be padded and filled up to the next best fit to make its size a multiple of the register size, unless you add zero sized bitfields to indicate that you don't want padding.
Basically every 'scientist' back too minimum 10,000 BC knew that the earth is a sphere. That greek guy simply was one again who tried to calculate/measure how big the earth is. Older records about the size of the earth of e.g. the babylonians are simply lost, that is all.
If we can agree that the carbon footprint of both is irrelevant then we are still left with nuclear being more reliable, lower cost, and safer. No we can't.
A solar plant can not cause a disaster...
Solar power isn't just expensive because the collectors are made of space age materials, They are not expensive, and they are not made from strange space age materials, they are made from: sand. Just like the chips in your phone or computer. it's expensive because it's unreliable. You are still mixing up "dispatchable" with reliable.
If we add the storage and "smarts" to make solar reliable then that adds to the costs. Who cares? It is still cheaper than nuclear power...
You have two diesel generators. One is running 24h/365d with varying load between 85% and 95% and occasionally 100%, it has a CF of perhaps 90%. You have a second one, same brand, same capabilities, you run it 1 day a year with 100% output it has something like 1/365 CF... something like 0.003 CF.
Do you get now what a CF is? I don't guess so...
If you have a country that is run only by nuclear power, but your load varies over the day from 40% (of daytime max) at night to 100% (at daytime), then more than half of your plants can not run with full power. Hence they don't have a CF of 90% or more, but just 20% or 40% or even less.
How can France kick Germany's ass in CO2 production when it is importing 10% - 20% of its power from Germany?
France is the leader in large industrialized countries when it comes to clean air electrical production. Yes, because they are not far behind Germany in terms of renewables... in absolute numbers. In relative numbers they are far behind Portugal, even Spain and Denmark.
But that was not the point you wanted to make, right?
Like to swim in front of La Hague? I pledge you to reconsider...
They also displace claims that nuclear cannot vary output. No, they don't. They adjust the load to the supply, while other grids adjust the supply to the load, aka adjust output. France has an artificial high base load (far over 50%) ratio. They run the reprocessing plants at night from the surplus power instead of lowering the output of the nuclear plant. If they had no nuclear plants but ordinary power production like the rest of Europe the whole country would use and produce 20% - 30% less power. Then again, with so many nuclear plants, you can juggle them around, have some run with constant power, have some mainly react to reduced load, and the others react to increasing load, and change the plan for each plant a few hours later. As individual plants, a French nuclear plant can not follow load any better than a German one, which basically means: in low 10MW steps it can - a little bit - in bigger steps it can't. "A little bit" means: if you power it down right now by 10MW, you have to power it up again in about 15 minutes... or like Chernobyl: you are stuck at your current power level for hours, you only can reduce it further, but can not power up again, for hours.
Why should i believe anything you wrote when the sites you cite are not believeable? You come up with the idiotic argument that solar power produces more CO2 than nuclear power, when both during the "power production period" produce zero CO2 and if we would live in a world where everything, including transportation from the remotest area is done with electricity would produce zero CO2. Comparing zero CO2 producing power sources and then claiming one produces more than the other is: idiotic.
Let's do away with all these energy subsidies and see who wins out. No one wins out. We - as in humans - all lose.
Without an active policy done by "the political arm" changes are much to slow. If there would not be politicians and citizens demanding it, no one would quit from nuclear or quit from coal, until he really needs: because the citizens need the power and have no control from where they get their power. 30 years ago electric power simply came out of the power plug, that was it.
OTOH if there had not been "the wrong policies" there never had been any nuclear plants anyway, and we had nothing to discuss.
Maybe because it was pointed out that a couple hundred million in extra costs from regulation (higher seawall and better backup cooling power) could have saved Japan a couple hundred billion in cleanup costs? Likely not, as later it became published that the pipes in the cooling system were to much damaged by the quake. AmoJ,/. reader, mentioned that a few days/weeks in other nuclear related threats.
A nuclear power plant can have a capacity factor of 90% Only if you run it as a base load plant.
CFs are completely meaningless, especially for people like you who don't grasp what it means.
Example: France used to get 70% of its power from nuclear, now it is a bit less. Do you really think all the plants run with a CF of 90%? How should that work?
Money costs lives too, raising energy prices means less money for food, medical care, and so on. In Japan? Har Har Har. You really have no clue what the difference is between a nearly 3rd world country like the US and a modern high tech society?
The strongest radioactive material released had a half-life of only eight days, so while a two-week temporary evacuation probably made sense, permanently uprooting the people in the outer perimeter was bad for them, overall. The half life is irrelevant. The most dangerous material around Chernobyl is Plutonium. If it gets into your organism, you most certainly die due to it.
How often do I need to repeat that roughly 600k recruits where used as clean up teams and 90% of them are dead now 30 years later? The rest of dead are the people who lived in the ares and did not leave, and the few thousand spectator who watched the fire from the other side of the lake. If you are to lazy to gather informations and make up your mind: your problem. I was a witness when it happened, you obviously not.
Well, Netherlands are very small. They use gas instead of pumped storages, most likely because of the geography. Interesting charts about Netherlands im-/exports: https://www.tennet.eu/electric...
Sorry, in my world CO2 pollution and energy consumption is split up into: Households, Traffic, Industry, Energy Production. This are the big 4s. Obviously the electricity a household uses or an industry uses falls into the category "Energy Production". So there is no double counting. Hence all the other CO2 the industry produces is either their own power plants (electricity that is not traded on the market nor reported) or simply heat or waste as in cement production, and for a household it obviously can only be cooking with gas (no one cooks with oil) and heating (oil and gas, biomass is not counted as it is a zero sum game). If your country counts different... how should I know that?
First off all, I doubt the IRS counts like that, because then it would be already taxed, and no one would argue about it. Secondly it would simply be wrong if they count that way. No one can work to his 10h a day university job another 8h to pay the fake taxes he has to pay because he is not receiving money for the first 10h but a waiver.
"Receiving a good/service as income is equivalent to paying for it from your savings." Yes. If it is "payment" for your work. Or under other rare circumstances. Winning a luxury vacation on a ship in a lottery, is not income.
Slashdot Mirror
You are strongly advised to get a teacher, the stuff you do is just nonsense.
Why the heck would your example function Concatenate_m call "free" on any of its arguments?
You can not put objects into objects into objects in Java or Python ...
That is not true for modern processors and modern C.
Structs will always be padded and filled up to the next best fit to make its size a multiple of the register size, unless you add zero sized bitfields to indicate that you don't want padding.
And this is how it would look: https://www.nationalgeographic...
Basically every 'scientist' back too minimum 10,000 BC knew that the earth is a sphere.
That greek guy simply was one again who tried to calculate/measure how big the earth is.
Older records about the size of the earth of e.g. the babylonians are simply lost, that is all.
The control electronics will.
It won't have control electronics, those will be in the remote controlling device.
The sensors will.
Which sensors? Radiation detection? Temperature?
Except for CCDs there hardly is anything that can fail.
The "robots" are going to have to be marionettes :D
Exactly
Because you can goole the deadly dose of Plutonium yourself very easy.
France does not import 10% of its power from Germany.
Yes it does: https://www.energy-charts.de/e...
But is easy to just check CO2 output and see that France is much lower. :D
Not difficult with 25% less population
If we can agree that the carbon footprint of both is irrelevant then we are still left with nuclear being more reliable, lower cost, and safer.
No we can't.
A solar plant can not cause a disaster ...
Solar power isn't just expensive because the collectors are made of space age materials,
They are not expensive, and they are not made from strange space age materials, they are made from: sand. Just like the chips in your phone or computer.
it's expensive because it's unreliable.
You are still mixing up "dispatchable" with reliable.
If we add the storage and "smarts" to make solar reliable then that adds to the costs. ...
Who cares? It is still cheaper than nuclear power
You have two diesel generators. ... something like 0.003 CF.
One is running 24h/365d with varying load between 85% and 95% and occasionally 100%, it has a CF of perhaps 90%.
You have a second one, same brand, same capabilities, you run it 1 day a year with 100% output it has something like 1/365 CF
Do you get now what a CF is? I don't guess so ...
If you have a country that is run only by nuclear power, but your load varies over the day from 40% (of daytime max) at night to 100% (at daytime), then more than half of your plants can not run with full power. Hence they don't have a CF of 90% or more, but just 20% or 40% or even less.
How can France kick Germany's ass in CO2 production when it is importing 10% - 20% of its power from Germany?
France is the leader in large industrialized countries when it comes to clean air electrical production. ... in absolute numbers. In relative numbers they are far behind Portugal, even Spain and Denmark.
Yes, because they are not far behind Germany in terms of renewables
But that was not the point you wanted to make, right?
Like to swim in front of La Hague? I pledge you to reconsider ...
They also displace claims that nuclear cannot vary output. ... or like Chernobyl: you are stuck at your current power level for hours, you only can reduce it further, but can not power up again, for hours.
No, they don't. They adjust the load to the supply, while other grids adjust the supply to the load, aka adjust output. France has an artificial high base load (far over 50%) ratio. They run the reprocessing plants at night from the surplus power instead of lowering the output of the nuclear plant.
If they had no nuclear plants but ordinary power production like the rest of Europe the whole country would use and produce 20% - 30% less power.
Then again, with so many nuclear plants, you can juggle them around, have some run with constant power, have some mainly react to reduced load, and the others react to increasing load, and change the plan for each plant a few hours later.
As individual plants, a French nuclear plant can not follow load any better than a German one, which basically means: in low 10MW steps it can - a little bit - in bigger steps it can't. "A little bit" means: if you power it down right now by 10MW, you have to power it up again in about 15 minutes
Benzene will certainly kill you as well
In which dose?
1mg per kg body weight?
1micro gram?
Why should i believe anything you wrote when the sites you cite are not believeable?
You come up with the idiotic argument that solar power produces more CO2 than nuclear power, when both during the "power production period" produce zero CO2 and if we would live in a world where everything, including transportation from the remotest area is done with electricity would produce zero CO2.
Comparing zero CO2 producing power sources and then claiming one produces more than the other is: idiotic.
Let's do away with all these energy subsidies and see who wins out.
No one wins out.
We - as in humans - all lose.
Without an active policy done by "the political arm" changes are much to slow. If there would not be politicians and citizens demanding it, no one would quit from nuclear or quit from coal, until he really needs: because the citizens need the power and have no control from where they get their power.
30 years ago electric power simply came out of the power plug, that was it.
OTOH if there had not been "the wrong policies" there never had been any nuclear plants anyway, and we had nothing to discuss.
world-nuclear.org is a pro nuclear anti "everything else" FUD site.
Maybe because it was pointed out that a couple hundred million in extra costs from regulation (higher seawall and better backup cooling power) could have saved Japan a couple hundred billion in cleanup costs? /. reader, mentioned that a few days/weeks in other nuclear related threats.
Likely not, as later it became published that the pipes in the cooling system were to much damaged by the quake. AmoJ,
Here is an article about it: http://www.independent.co.uk/n...
A nuclear power plant can have a capacity factor of 90%
Only if you run it as a base load plant.
CFs are completely meaningless, especially for people like you who don't grasp what it means.
Example: France used to get 70% of its power from nuclear, now it is a bit less. Do you really think all the plants run with a CF of 90%? How should that work?
Money costs lives too, raising energy prices means less money for food, medical care, and so on.
In Japan? Har Har Har. You really have no clue what the difference is between a nearly 3rd world country like the US and a modern high tech society?
The strongest radioactive material released had a half-life of only eight days, so while a two-week temporary evacuation probably made sense, permanently uprooting the people in the outer perimeter was bad for them, overall.
The half life is irrelevant.
The most dangerous material around Chernobyl is Plutonium.
If it gets into your organism, you most certainly die due to it.
How often do I need to repeat that roughly 600k recruits where used as clean up teams and 90% of them are dead now 30 years later?
The rest of dead are the people who lived in the ares and did not leave, and the few thousand spectator who watched the fire from the other side of the lake.
If you are to lazy to gather informations and make up your mind: your problem.
I was a witness when it happened, you obviously not.
Well, Netherlands are very small.
They use gas instead of pumped storages, most likely because of the geography.
Interesting charts about Netherlands im-/exports: https://www.tennet.eu/electric...
Sorry, in my world CO2 pollution and energy consumption is split up into: ... how should I know that?
Households, Traffic, Industry, Energy Production. This are the big 4s.
Obviously the electricity a household uses or an industry uses falls into the category "Energy Production". So there is no double counting.
Hence all the other CO2 the industry produces is either their own power plants (electricity that is not traded on the market nor reported) or simply heat or waste as in cement production, and for a household it obviously can only be cooking with gas (no one cooks with oil) and heating (oil and gas, biomass is not counted as it is a zero sum game).
If your country counts different
First off all, I doubt the IRS counts like that, because then it would be already taxed, and no one would argue about it.
Secondly it would simply be wrong if they count that way. No one can work to his 10h a day university job another 8h to pay the fake taxes he has to pay because he is not receiving money for the first 10h but a waiver.
"Receiving a good/service as income is equivalent to paying for it from your savings."
Yes. If it is "payment" for your work. Or under other rare circumstances. Winning a luxury vacation on a ship in a lottery, is not income.
I heard about it, but did not know it was so server.
More likely building standards.
In which country ?