That would require to do a different business What is wrong in preparing for and shaping a future market? Like Apple did with the iPod and iPhone? Or the new Space companies?
Everyone can "attempt" to make a product on the current market and compete with everyone else who is in that market... but why? If you only have a limited budget this is the most risky thing to do. Why do you think you are able to make a new product, market it, sell it and compete at the same time with dozens if not hundreds of more experienced and more established businesses?
It is much easier to make a completely new product for a yet not existing market.
We don't have that in Germany, so I'm not following such news much, so you should give an example:D And while you are on it, I guess you find also examples where the law suits went correctly.
You don't get it. The government has not more power.
A random institution, connected to the public prosecutor's office has more power.
And every decision they make can be challenged in court.
So the only change of that the new law brings is the amount of fine and defining the reaction time during which the "offender" has to react to avoid said fine.
There is nothing totalitarian at all in this new law.
There are no countries that are in any way meaningful that use US$ as "reserves".
US$ is bought and sold by majour national banks to influence the value of the $ or their own currency on global markets. That is all.
Do you really think when a majour crisis is approaching, like a big war, or even happening as the war is conducted, that any US$ would have any value for any one on the world?
Or do you mean, personal savings? Personal savings in many countries are either old DM or modern EU and only in countries that have a strong connection to the US they are dollars.
Then you are not very smart... as the opinions you form from your "even though I actually did look into the subject" make no sense and are wrong.
Your whoe posts indicates: you have no clue. And your follow up indicates: You're not even logically competent enough to disagree with me without making an ass of yourself because you are full with insults;D
OTOH alternating current lines also have losses by induction (inducting currents into surrounding infrastructure) and radiation of radio waves (I think a weather phenomena).
Direct current lines don't have those problems, hence the discussions about shifting to DC from AC (See HVDC lines... high voltage DC)
a) most countries have a grid capable (high enough voltage) to transport what ever they want without significant losses
b) upgrading a grid is a majour infrastructure task. E.g. you have to build new lines more or less along the way where you have the old ones. Get them ready, attached to sources and destinations etc. and activated and then you have to power down and dismantle the old infrastructure. In Europe this is rarely done. It is much more economical to simply build new dedicated long distance lines, with less flexibility ofc.
Keep in mind: for economic/law reasons long transport lines are not simply wires. There are power plants attached to the wires a long the way of transportation. The idea is: if I feed in 1GWh at one end, I don't want to know or to calculate how much comes out at the other end. I simply want a price how much it costs me to transport that 1GWh. So the provider of the transport line is replacing my loss with his own power and charging me per 1MW and 1MWh for his transportation service. So upgrading an existing line means reworking all connections of the existing power plants. Building a new line means building new power plants or at least new transformers for existing plants if they are not to far away.
But the main reason this is rarely happening is a) above.
Countries like USA, that don't have nation wide spanning grids, otoh don't have those problems, they can start on the green field.
But was the original claim not that the government households and state debt (particular in Spain, Greece and Portugal) is driven by miscalculated energy prices? I can not follow that so far.
To your original question. no one is going 100% solar and using batteries for the night. It simply makes no sense.
We'd be paving over land with concrete to put in solar panels and batteries. No we would not. Arizona alone has more sunshine than the entire planet needs for electric power... several times, I believe.
And solar panels can be placed over the crops... or on buildings. Plenty of places can place solar panels in "the fields" where they don't disturbe anyone.
The grids itself very likely not. However the way how they work is changing drastically.
E.g. the idea of "base load plants" gets less and less important, with the shift to combined gas cycle plants (gas turbine plus boiler), special balancing plants are less needed (the americans call them peakers, but I guess that is a layme'n term).
Same for midrange/load following plants, combined gas cycle plants fill that niche as well.
OTOH the total demand for electric power will increase, as more and more will shift away from fossile fuels to electricity. That means grid upgrades for transportation and distribution *or* storage if you see a market for it instead of transporting it away.
Then again we have smart meters for demand shaping. Instead of transporting surplus away, or storing it (in non yet existing storage) *or* powering down a load following plant (which is to slow to adapt, so during powering down we waste fuel) and powering it up later (wasting fuel again) we simply tell customers to activate the washing machine now, or the fridge now or the freezer now: we change and adapt demand to the surplus instead of losing the surplus or getting rid of it in traditional ways.
That all would run much smoother and faster if other nations had similar laws like the EU regarding selling, production and transportation of power.
A neural network is not able to analyze a decision tree. Hence it is not a search algorithm etc. It is a very 'simple' input pattern versus output pattern matcher/generator.
The 'not so simple' task is to find a fitting topology (how many layers etc.) and to train efficiently and successful.
I did mot say that batteries have no use. But they won't be ever used large scale as a storage system to acompany solar power e.g. on a grid. And we are talking about what is happening right now, installing solar and wind right now. In our current situation there is no grid on earth that I'm aware of that has such a big solar or wind contribution that it makes any sense to store anything. You simply power down the load following plants to compensate 'surplus'. In germany we face tge situation that we can not always transport all power generated in the north down to the south. But having storage in the north would not really help. It is only nice as a thought experiment.
Battery storages attached to grids will be likely either shared used with home solar installations or charging smart meter attached batteries. And those won't be used in the sense of storage as the parent meant but as 'eaters' of surplus power in the sense of balancing power.
So, yes, I think I have a clue about how grids work and how limited the usefullness of storage and batteries right now is.
The idea that solar and/or wind can not take of 'without storage' is a well fed myth on/.... no idea where it actually originated, though.
'Artificial Intelligence' is a term like 'Autism'... it has a well defined meaning for the people working in those fields. And laymen like you are ignorant about that meaning and try to impose what you think it should mean on your readership;D
Utilities won't use batteries at all. Or in only the most rare or even exotic circumstances.
Lets define the highest peak of the year in your power consumption/production (in your grid, not your house) as '100% peak'.
How many power plants on your grid do you have to replace by solar power that you have (at some point during sun hours) enough surplus solar power to store some in batteries? And when during your 24h cycle of the day do you have sudden demand that you can use the stored energy?
There are plenty of ways to make battery storage useful, but most of them are already blocked by other technologies... which no one is going to replace.
Battery storage only makes sense for households/installations that don't want/can feed surplus into the grid, or are off grid.
Google can not make user centered software. Everything they offer as web applications and on the Chromeboo is so close to unuseable that you wished to had a shotgun and either round up the developers and let them pay or go down into your basement and shot yourself.
The day that google might have a useable laptop OS is most certainly 20 years away. And probably stays like that the next 20 years...
My point was that it is an expense. Peaker plants produce _horrendously_ expensive electricity. We already have those peaker plants. Their power is expensive because they are only utilized very low. With the shift to solar plants those existing peaker plants get utilized more... there is no problem. A peaker plant does not care if it has to jump in because the wind blows less, a cloud goes over a solar plant or 1 million americans open the fridge at the same time during an ad during the super bowl.
And: for solar and wind we have prognosises, so we know in advance if we have to power up something. And guess what: we power up a load following plant most of the time, and not a peaker.
Something like 2% of their energy. 20% of their domestically produced electricity (they import). Ever european country imports and exports. The question is: is a country a net importer or a net exporter. Germany is a net exporter, we have the highest surplus energy production in Europe. In the last ten years I doubt we had more than 10 month of "net import", and those months get completely wiped out by the remaining months where we export 25% - 50% of our power production.
Slashdot Mirror
That would require to do a different business
What is wrong in preparing for and shaping a future market? Like Apple did with the iPod and iPhone? Or the new Space companies?
Everyone can "attempt" to make a product on the current market and compete with everyone else who is in that market ... but why? If you only have a limited budget this is the most risky thing to do. Why do you think you are able to make a new product, market it, sell it and compete at the same time with dozens if not hundreds of more experienced and more established businesses?
It is much easier to make a completely new product for a yet not existing market.
Well, I did not think about the development costs on earth, in case there is a new "autonomous fabrication robot" needed.
I only considered the transportation/launch costs.
Then again: that perhaps would be a project to try to establish on the Moon?
In the sense of "separations of power".
We don't have that in Germany, so I'm not following such news much, so you should give an example :D
And while you are on it, I guess you find also examples where the law suits went correctly.
I would say it is a /. myth :D
You don't get it.
The government has not more power.
A random institution, connected to the public prosecutor's office has more power.
And every decision they make can be challenged in court.
So the only change of that the new law brings is the amount of fine and defining the reaction time during which the "offender" has to react to avoid said fine.
There is nothing totalitarian at all in this new law.
There are no countries that are in any way meaningful that use US$ as "reserves".
US$ is bought and sold by majour national banks to influence the value of the $ or their own currency on global markets. That is all.
Do you really think when a majour crisis is approaching, like a big war, or even happening as the war is conducted, that any US$ would have any value for any one on the world?
Or do you mean, personal savings? Personal savings in many countries are either old DM or modern EU and only in countries that have a strong connection to the US they are dollars.
Then you are not very smart ... as the opinions you form from your "even though I actually did look into the subject" make no sense and are wrong.
Your whoe posts indicates: you have no clue. ;D
And your follow up indicates: You're not even logically competent enough to disagree with me without making an ass of yourself because you are full with insults
Exactly.
OTOH alternating current lines also have losses by induction (inducting currents into surrounding infrastructure) and radiation of radio waves (I think a weather phenomena).
Direct current lines don't have those problems, hence the discussions about shifting to DC from AC (See HVDC lines ... high voltage DC)
There are two reasons:
a) most countries have a grid capable (high enough voltage) to transport what ever they want without significant losses
b) upgrading a grid is a majour infrastructure task. E.g. you have to build new lines more or less along the way where you have the old ones. Get them ready, attached to sources and destinations etc. and activated and then you have to power down and dismantle the old infrastructure. In Europe this is rarely done. It is much more economical to simply build new dedicated long distance lines, with less flexibility ofc.
Keep in mind: for economic/law reasons long transport lines are not simply wires. There are power plants attached to the wires a long the way of transportation. The idea is: if I feed in 1GWh at one end, I don't want to know or to calculate how much comes out at the other end. I simply want a price how much it costs me to transport that 1GWh. So the provider of the transport line is replacing my loss with his own power and charging me per 1MW and 1MWh for his transportation service. So upgrading an existing line means reworking all connections of the existing power plants. Building a new line means building new power plants or at least new transformers for existing plants if they are not to far away.
But the main reason this is rarely happening is a) above.
Countries like USA, that don't have nation wide spanning grids, otoh don't have those problems, they can start on the green field.
No I don't.
I mean electric energy when I talk about electricity. Obviously.
E.g. Germany is not exporting any other form of energy in any meaningful amount.
Interesting paper.
But was the original claim not that the government households and state debt (particular in Spain, Greece and Portugal) is driven by miscalculated energy prices? I can not follow that so far.
To your original question. no one is going 100% solar and using batteries for the night. It simply makes no sense.
We'd be paving over land with concrete to put in solar panels and batteries. ... several times, I believe.
No we would not.
Arizona alone has more sunshine than the entire planet needs for electric power
And solar panels can be placed over the crops ... or on buildings. Plenty of places can place solar panels in "the fields" where they don't disturbe anyone.
http://www.renewableenergyworl...
The grids itself very likely not.
However the way how they work is changing drastically.
E.g. the idea of "base load plants" gets less and less important, with the shift to combined gas cycle plants (gas turbine plus boiler), special balancing plants are less needed (the americans call them peakers, but I guess that is a layme'n term).
Same for midrange/load following plants, combined gas cycle plants fill that niche as well.
OTOH the total demand for electric power will increase, as more and more will shift away from fossile fuels to electricity. That means grid upgrades for transportation and distribution *or* storage if you see a market for it instead of transporting it away.
Then again we have smart meters for demand shaping. Instead of transporting surplus away, or storing it (in non yet existing storage) *or* powering down a load following plant (which is to slow to adapt, so during powering down we waste fuel) and powering it up later (wasting fuel again) we simply tell customers to activate the washing machine now, or the fridge now or the freezer now: we change and adapt demand to the surplus instead of losing the surplus or getting rid of it in traditional ways.
That all would run much smoother and faster if other nations had similar laws like the EU regarding selling, production and transportation of power.
It is a talk about grids, not households.
A grid has no need for storage unless you are approaching a share of minimum 40% - 50% of wind/solar.
A neural network is not able to analyze a decision tree. Hence it is not a search algorithm etc.
It is a very 'simple' input pattern versus output pattern matcher/generator.
The 'not so simple' task is to find a fitting topology (how many layers etc.) and to train efficiently and successful.
I did mot say that batteries have no use.
But they won't be ever used large scale as a storage system to acompany solar power e.g. on a grid.
And we are talking about what is happening right now, installing solar and wind right now. In our current situation there is no grid on earth that I'm aware of that has such a big solar or wind contribution that it makes any sense to store anything. You simply power down the load following plants to compensate 'surplus'.
In germany we face tge situation that we can not always transport all power generated in the north down to the south. But having storage in the north would not really help. It is only nice as a thought experiment.
Battery storages attached to grids will be likely either shared used with home solar installations or charging smart meter attached batteries. And those won't be used in the sense of storage as the parent meant but as 'eaters' of surplus power in the sense of balancing power.
So, yes, I think I have a clue about how grids work and how limited the usefullness of storage and batteries right now is.
The idea that solar and/or wind can not take of 'without storage' is a well fed myth on /. ... no idea where it actually originated, though.
Neural nets don't implement search algorithms ...
'Artificial Intelligence' is a term like 'Autism' ... it has a well defined meaning for the people working in those fields. And laymen like you are ignorant about that meaning and try to impose what you think it should mean on your readership ;D
You simply have no clue about the topic.
Utilities won't use batteries at all. Or in only the most rare or even exotic circumstances.
Lets define the highest peak of the year in your power consumption/production (in your grid, not your house) as '100% peak'.
How many power plants on your grid do you have to replace by solar power that you have (at some point during sun hours) enough surplus solar power to store some in batteries? And when during your 24h cycle of the day do you have sudden demand that you can use the stored energy?
There are plenty of ways to make battery storage useful, but most of them are already blocked by other technologies ... which no one is going to replace.
Battery storage only makes sense for households/installations that don't want/can feed surplus into the grid, or are off grid.
Looking at his posts: it makes him a dork :)
I doubt anyone grasped what you wanted to say with all that 'dirty' and randomly mixing in the second law of thermodynamics.
Google can not make user centered software. Everything they offer as web applications and on the Chromeboo is so close to unuseable that you wished to had a shotgun and either round up the developers and let them pay or go down into your basement and shot yourself.
The day that google might have a useable laptop OS is most certainly 20 years away. And probably stays like that the next 20 years ...
Sorry that is idiotic.
The amount of money put into power plants/grids is such a low fraction of GPD it can not cause a deficit.
My point was that it is an expense. Peaker plants produce _horrendously_ expensive electricity. ... there is no problem.
We already have those peaker plants.
Their power is expensive because they are only utilized very low.
With the shift to solar plants those existing peaker plants get utilized more
A peaker plant does not care if it has to jump in because the wind blows less, a cloud goes over a solar plant or 1 million americans open the fridge at the same time during an ad during the super bowl.
And: for solar and wind we have prognosises, so we know in advance if we have to power up something. And guess what: we power up a load following plant most of the time, and not a peaker.
Something like 2% of their energy. 20% of their domestically produced electricity (they import).
Ever european country imports and exports.
The question is: is a country a net importer or a net exporter. Germany is a net exporter, we have the highest surplus energy production in Europe. In the last ten years I doubt we had more than 10 month of "net import", and those months get completely wiped out by the remaining months where we export 25% - 50% of our power production.