So the peak power vastly overstates their average contribution. That is nonsense as the peak power production of wind mills is usually no where stated. The nameplate on the windmill: is the power it produces at a certain wind speed. And if that wind speed happens to be common, rare or or often exceeded is a question of the place where the wind mill is placed.
BALTIC I and BALTIC II, the two research wind plants in the baltic sea of http://www.enbw.com/ e.g. have capacity factors of over 100%. Because typical wind speed is over the course of t a year 50% of the time significantly above the rated wind speed of the turbines.
So you got your CUBE argument completely wrong. Nameplate capacities are usually underrated because they are for low wind speeds and kinda a "guarantee" of the manufactor. In RL a wind mill placed at the right spot will always have CFs above 80% and up to 400%.
The issue is that power capacity comparisons overstate the total amount of energy you get out of the renewable generation equipment over the long haul because coal generation c^Ha^Hn^H could run near capacity all the time and renewables (excluding water power) only a s^Hm^Ha^Hl^Hl^H some part of the time.
Cough cough fixing that for you: most coal power is load following. So over night it is near to zero, just enough to keep the plant warm, not even generating electricity. In the morning around 6:00 the first plants slowly get ramped up and in half an hour gaps the other plants follow till all load following/balancing/peak plants are around 80% around 12:00 and hold that plateau till perhaps 18:00. Then the reverse process is starting, gradually, the most expensive plants first power down so that till roughly 2:00 at night all coal plants are sleeping again.
So, unless you have a coal base load plant, its CF is no big difference than a solar plant or wind plant. Only difference is: it is dispatchable.
(*facepalm*) AC it actually becomes very cost prohibitive very quickly over very long distances That is wrong. 1.8k miles is not a long distance. The rest of the world has far longer transport lines and copes well with them. and more electricity is lost due to resistance and heat. That is wrong, too. Fatally wrong actually. AC lines lose less power than DC lines due to heat and resistance. However AC lines lose more power in total, because of: radiation. AC lines induce power magnetically into surrounding "things" and that is the reason why they have a relatively high loss in relation to similar high voltage DC lines. And if we talk about AC versus DC we are talking about very very high voltages starting at about 1 million volts. All of Europe is interconnected with 380kV lines from the north sea till east siberia. And Siberia and 3rd world countries like Kasachstan have 1.1MV AC lines for interconnection/transport. Kasachstan e.g. is about 6000km wide from east to west and 3000km hight from north to south. That is roughly a quarter or a third of the USA. And that is a country you look down on...
They sure don't produce much energy in a Northern winter. First of all, most of the north (in europe) has no winters anymore. Secondly, it depends how far north you go... germany e.g. does not have a polar night if you are thinking about that. From the second point follows: solar panels that are aiming due south, only miss the fraction of sunlight in early morning and late afternoon that they would get in summer. In other words, the middle part of the power curve is nearly the same. Unless the sky is cloudy, obviously.
The record day where most power was produced by renewables in Germany (around 50%) was a sunny and windy early January day. I believe a 6th (church holiday). Percentage of renewables was around 50%... but because of the holiday and vacations etc. the industry was offline.
There are two kinds of colonies. a) I sent a troop of settlers to a different island/land and they found a city and consider themselves still citizens or at least of the same nation than me. Example would be the greek settlements all over the Mediterranean b) I sent even more troops and conquer another nation and call that a colony. Like India being a colony of the english empire or Cameroon and Namibia being colonies of germany.
In case of b) the local natives never where citizens of the empire occupying and controlling them.
So your parent was completely right, but perhaps he should have chosen imperialism instead of colonialism.
Perhaps you should visit one of the oil harbors under US or European "control"? Nothing goes there if it is not sanctioned or is even initiated by the big oil bosses. Corrupt governments, lack of democracy, that is what the oil companies want and use/abuse.
No they will explain us that nuclear is "cleaner" and that we should have build nuclear plants during the previous 10 years (which would not have changed much over those 10 years as they would have been under construction and not producing power).
If we had started 10 years ago building thousands of nuclear plants world wide, we probably had a few finished in 5 to 10 further years, though.
I for my part find the gradual migration by simply adding more renewables more convincing and successful.
Well, then obviously you are doing it all wrong. What is a Wifi Profile and why do you think a Mac needs one? Why and what should a Mac synch with AD? The AD is needed to hold his info and password, thats it. There should never be any reason to synch something up to AD.
OTOH, the OS is going downhill. Mysterious "suddenly it does not work anymore" is happening now quite often. Either intentionally by Apple when they ditch something the old OS could do easily or due to bugs.
I would prefer they fixed bugs instead of issuing new versions of the OS now every 6 months.
Glancing over the wikipedia article he seems quite a sound scientist.
Perhaps he was wrong quoted in media.
No serious scientist ever claimed that the sea level already could have risen a meter. That is absurd. Regardless how quickly the temperature would have risen. The ice needs some time to melt. That is a no brainer.
So no idea why people like you use phrases like "New York City was supposed to be under water by now. " to discredit the AGW scientists when it is obvious for anyone that such a thing is impossible.
Either seriously advocate the eradication of between 50-95% First of all, who rated this insightful has nothing learned from the third reich, Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot etc. Secondly, if the remaining X%, depending how many you cull, don't change their lifestyle, the problem is only postponed. Thirdly: instead of "killing" people you simply can help them to reduce CO2 output to ZERO. Problem solved. Bottom line I have to point out: you are an idiot.
That actually should be no big deal. Vi(m) should be able to do that out of the box (macros!). After all the keys simply wil be F1 - F12 or the will be a setting to use an Fn key that makes the 'stipe' behave like F-n keys. ESC it self would not be gone, ctrl-[ is ESC, but on a german keyboard, that is close to impossble to type (ctrl-alt-5 or ctrl-alt-shift5, don't remember... I'm on an iPad and can not check) so writing macros that need ESC is till possible.
The increase you talk about is average for the globe regardless of season. My numbers are accurate. They are winter temperatures in germany. We have no winters anymore since decades... go figure.
"The west" is very far left from my point of view. But no idea what you actually mean with "the west" and "the far left".
Fact is that the western industrialized nations are responsible for ~75% of CO2 emissions. Not 1/3rd as you claim.
Do you remember the year when China surpassed the USA in CO2 emissions? No? Are you even certain that China produces more CO2 than the US? More than "the west"? More than the "far left"?
Then you should perhaps not post in discussions like this?
New York City was supposed to be under water by now. Who claimed that? And who was so stupid to believe it?
Basing your arguments on idiocies does not make your point right.
I also can come up with: according to the apocalypse everything should be.... bla. But as it is not bla we certainly can do yuppie. Did that make sense? Nope? Neither did your post.
El Ninhos and La Ninjas have no effect on global temperature.
They are local phenomena, albeit quit big ones. And both have no effect at all on global average temperature. They not even have an effect on average temperature in the areas where they occur. Both phenomena are just spots of hot water and cold water in the Pacific. One year distributed like this and the other year distributed like that.
There are excellent maps you can google for (e.g. Australian weather and climate institutes) which show the various distribution patterns.
Sure there is the offhand chance that in several centuries (and not decades as the fearmongers would like you to believe) the earth will be significantly hotter than today. So what? The earth is already significantly hotter than, 15, 20, 30 or 40 years ago. Pick your number. Winter temperature right now around my place +5 / -5 degrees. 30 years ago: -10 / -30 degrees. Just a very small difference... that is CELSIUS btw. in case you have trouble to grasp how huge that difference is.
In fact historically the earth had been far, far hotter than today, with no particular drawbacks for its inhabitants at that time. And at that time no human lived on the planet. So what exactly do you want to say? You don't care if mankind gets extinct? I would not care either if it was a slow death of lack of reproduction because of "what ever". But looking at Somalia and Sudan, I doubt it is a nice option to simply say: puh... they kill each other until the rest can survive on the remaining food...
The US are the only nation that first bluntly refused to cut emissions and then slowly started to do so but still is in denial. If you had not changed to electric power by gas plants: because of cheap gas you still would be polluter number one!
All other nations are working hard on cutting down emissions since 25 years. Except a few developing nations that try to catch up with the west first (and still have per capita significantly less emissions than the US).
Face it: the USA are the polluter of the planet, in all regards. And you somehow want to deny that by pin pointing single cases of worth pollution.
Cryptography does not work like that. You still only need one key tomdeciepher it: your message is 1, the keys are 2, 3 and 5. You encrypt it to 1 * 2 * 3 * 5 = 30. To decrypt you obly need to stumble over the key 30. Migth not work for every combination of encryption methods though.
And some of the bad programming practices we see today is the result of developers jumping from one trendy language to the next while never taking the time to become proficient in any of them. This is utter nonsense. Either you can program or you can't. And jumping form language to language usually makes you a better programmer as you tend to learn to look at problems from different points of views.
We don't need more languages Of course we do. I rather write 4 lines of code in a new language than 40 line sin C or 400 in assembler. we need better programmers. No we don't. Most programmers are good enough. We only need _more_ of the good ones. Not better ones.
Slashdot Mirror
So the peak power vastly overstates their average contribution.
That is nonsense as the peak power production of wind mills is usually no where stated.
The nameplate on the windmill: is the power it produces at a certain wind speed. And if that wind speed happens to be common, rare or or often exceeded is a question of the place where the wind mill is placed.
BALTIC I and BALTIC II, the two research wind plants in the baltic sea of http://www.enbw.com/ e.g. have capacity factors of over 100%. Because typical wind speed is over the course of t a year 50% of the time significantly above the rated wind speed of the turbines.
So you got your CUBE argument completely wrong. Nameplate capacities are usually underrated because they are for low wind speeds and kinda a "guarantee" of the manufactor. In RL a wind mill placed at the right spot will always have CFs above 80% and up to 400%.
Wind is exceeding its "capacity" regularly.
The issue is that power capacity comparisons overstate the total amount of energy you get out of the renewable generation equipment over the long haul because coal generation c^Ha^Hn^H could run near capacity all the time and renewables (excluding water power) only a s^Hm^Ha^Hl^Hl^H some part of the time.
Cough cough fixing that for you:
most coal power is load following. So over night it is near to zero, just enough to keep the plant warm, not even generating electricity. In the morning around 6:00 the first plants slowly get ramped up and in half an hour gaps the other plants follow till all load following/balancing/peak plants are around 80% around 12:00 and hold that plateau till perhaps 18:00. Then the reverse process is starting, gradually, the most expensive plants first power down so that till roughly 2:00 at night all coal plants are sleeping again.
So, unless you have a coal base load plant, its CF is no big difference than a solar plant or wind plant. Only difference is: it is dispatchable.
(*facepalm*) ...
AC it actually becomes very cost prohibitive very quickly over very long distances
That is wrong. 1.8k miles is not a long distance. The rest of the world has far longer transport lines and copes well with them.
and more electricity is lost due to resistance and heat.
That is wrong, too. Fatally wrong actually. AC lines lose less power than DC lines due to heat and resistance.
However AC lines lose more power in total, because of: radiation. AC lines induce power magnetically into surrounding "things" and that is the reason why they have a relatively high loss in relation to similar high voltage DC lines.
And if we talk about AC versus DC we are talking about very very high voltages starting at about 1 million volts.
All of Europe is interconnected with 380kV lines from the north sea till east siberia. And Siberia and 3rd world countries like Kasachstan have 1.1MV AC lines for interconnection/transport. Kasachstan e.g. is about 6000km wide from east to west and 3000km hight from north to south. That is roughly a quarter or a third of the USA. And that is a country you look down on
They sure don't produce much energy in a Northern winter. ... germany e.g. does not have a polar night if you are thinking about that.
First of all, most of the north (in europe) has no winters anymore.
Secondly, it depends how far north you go
From the second point follows: solar panels that are aiming due south, only miss the fraction of sunlight in early morning and late afternoon that they would get in summer. In other words, the middle part of the power curve is nearly the same. Unless the sky is cloudy, obviously.
The record day where most power was produced by renewables in Germany (around 50%) was a sunny and windy early January day. I believe a 6th (church holiday). Percentage of renewables was around 50% ... but because of the holiday and vacations etc. the industry was offline.
There are two kinds of colonies.
a) I sent a troop of settlers to a different island/land and they found a city and consider themselves still citizens or at least of the same nation than me. Example would be the greek settlements all over the Mediterranean
b) I sent even more troops and conquer another nation and call that a colony. Like India being a colony of the english empire or Cameroon and Namibia being colonies of germany.
In case of b) the local natives never where citizens of the empire occupying and controlling them.
So your parent was completely right, but perhaps he should have chosen imperialism instead of colonialism.
Perhaps you should visit one of the oil harbors under US or European "control"? Nothing goes there if it is not sanctioned or is even initiated by the big oil bosses. Corrupt governments, lack of democracy, that is what the oil companies want and use/abuse.
No they will explain us that nuclear is "cleaner" and that we should have build nuclear plants during the previous 10 years (which would not have changed much over those 10 years as they would have been under construction and not producing power).
If we had started 10 years ago building thousands of nuclear plants world wide, we probably had a few finished in 5 to 10 further years, though.
I for my part find the gradual migration by simply adding more renewables more convincing and successful.
Well, then obviously you are doing it all wrong.
What is a Wifi Profile and why do you think a Mac needs one?
Why and what should a Mac synch with AD? The AD is needed to hold his info and password, thats it. There should never be any reason to synch something up to AD.
OTOH, the OS is going downhill. Mysterious "suddenly it does not work anymore" is happening now quite often. Either intentionally by Apple when they ditch something the old OS could do easily or due to bugs.
I would prefer they fixed bugs instead of issuing new versions of the OS now every 6 months.
I doubt that.
Glancing over the wikipedia article he seems quite a sound scientist.
Perhaps he was wrong quoted in media.
No serious scientist ever claimed that the sea level already could have risen a meter. That is absurd. Regardless how quickly the temperature would have risen. The ice needs some time to melt. That is a no brainer.
So no idea why people like you use phrases like "New York City was supposed to be under water by now.
" to discredit the AGW scientists when it is obvious for anyone that such a thing is impossible.
Does it run Mac OS X? ... or Free BSD or Open Solaris.
Otherwise Linux would perhaps be an option
Either seriously advocate the eradication of between 50-95%
First of all, who rated this insightful has nothing learned from the third reich, Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot etc.
Secondly, if the remaining X%, depending how many you cull, don't change their lifestyle, the problem is only postponed.
Thirdly: instead of "killing" people you simply can help them to reduce CO2 output to ZERO. Problem solved.
Bottom line I have to point out: you are an idiot.
That actually should be no big deal. ... I'm on an iPad and can not check) so writing macros that need ESC is till possible.
Vi(m) should be able to do that out of the box (macros!). After all the keys simply wil be F1 - F12 or the will be a setting to use an Fn key that makes the 'stipe' behave like F-n keys.
ESC it self would not be gone, ctrl-[ is ESC, but on a german keyboard, that is close to impossble to type (ctrl-alt-5 or ctrl-alt-shift5, don't remember
In ost countries, (american) Budweiser would not even be classified as a beer.
Even when I not use vi, I hit ESC at lesst a hundret times a day ...
Does mot really make sense to get rid of a key that is used by professionals all around the clock.
The increase you talk about is average for the globe regardless of season. ... go figure.
My numbers are accurate. They are winter temperatures in germany.
We have no winters anymore since decades
"The west" is very far left from my point of view.
But no idea what you actually mean with "the west" and "the far left".
Fact is that the western industrialized nations are responsible for ~75% of CO2 emissions. Not 1/3rd as you claim.
Do you remember the year when China surpassed the USA in CO2 emissions? No? Are you even certain that China produces more CO2 than the US? More than "the west"? More than the "far left"?
Then you should perhaps not post in discussions like this?
New York City was supposed to be under water by now.
Who claimed that? And who was so stupid to believe it?
Basing your arguments on idiocies does not make your point right.
I also can come up with: according to the apocalypse everything should be .... bla. But as it is not bla we certainly can do yuppie. Did that make sense? Nope? Neither did your post.
El Ninhos and La Ninjas have no effect on global temperature.
They are local phenomena, albeit quit big ones. And both have no effect at all on global average temperature. They not even have an effect on average temperature in the areas where they occur. Both phenomena are just spots of hot water and cold water in the Pacific. One year distributed like this and the other year distributed like that.
There are excellent maps you can google for (e.g. Australian weather and climate institutes) which show the various distribution patterns.
What is an "Global Warmists"?
A new kind of Church?
Your country must really be fucked up that stuff like that gets a "church license".
You seem to be an idiot.
Sure there is the offhand chance that in several centuries (and not decades as the fearmongers would like you to believe) the earth will be significantly hotter than today. So what? ... that is CELSIUS btw. in case you have trouble to grasp how huge that difference is.
The earth is already significantly hotter than, 15, 20, 30 or 40 years ago.
Pick your number. Winter temperature right now around my place +5 / -5 degrees. 30 years ago: -10 / -30 degrees. Just a very small difference
In fact historically the earth had been far, far hotter than today, with no particular drawbacks for its inhabitants at that time. ... they kill each other until the rest can survive on the remaining food ...
And at that time no human lived on the planet. So what exactly do you want to say? You don't care if mankind gets extinct? I would not care either if it was a slow death of lack of reproduction because of "what ever". But looking at Somalia and Sudan, I doubt it is a nice option to simply say: puh
You seem to get it the wrong way.
The US are the only nation that first bluntly refused to cut emissions and then slowly started to do so but still is in denial. If you had not changed to electric power by gas plants: because of cheap gas you still would be polluter number one!
All other nations are working hard on cutting down emissions since 25 years. Except a few developing nations that try to catch up with the west first (and still have per capita significantly less emissions than the US).
Face it: the USA are the polluter of the planet, in all regards. And you somehow want to deny that by pin pointing single cases of worth pollution.
Cryptography does not work like that.
You still only need one key tomdeciepher it: your message is 1, the keys are 2, 3 and 5. You encrypt it to 1 * 2 * 3 * 5 = 30. To decrypt you obly need to stumble over the key 30.
Migth not work for every combination of encryption methods though.
And some of the bad programming practices we see today is the result of developers jumping from one trendy language to the next while never taking the time to become proficient in any of them.
This is utter nonsense. Either you can program or you can't.
And jumping form language to language usually makes you a better programmer as you tend to learn to look at problems from different points of views.
We don't need more languages Of course we do. I rather write 4 lines of code in a new language than 40 line sin C or 400 in assembler.
we need better programmers. No we don't. Most programmers are good enough. We only need _more_ of the good ones. Not better ones.
Nope, I don't ignore economics.
Classical base load plants are no longer economical. At least not in Europe and not in the emerging asian areas. No idea about USA, though.
Depends what you call IT.
I do software architectures and hence have a close contact to IT. And for my work I do not need to know what a domain controller is.
As you where not able to give a three sentence explanation, I strongly suspect: you don't know either.
No, Macs and Linux machines don't need to be plugged to a "DC" ... perhaps you mean an LDAP server for user and rights management?