The demand for AC can be greatly reduced if you change the architecture. Family houses in the US do not need to look like an north european one. They could be inspired by Persian or south Asian architecture, e.g. roofs that extend far enough to provide shadow. More trees would help, too. Modern office buildings, e.g. could have "core cooling", that means the concrete structures are cooled with water. Energy wise such systems are much cheaper. There are plenty of "modern" AC concepts that cut energy usage down to a tenth. New buildings should be forced to use them, or other way around: the typical "fridge like" ACs that hang outside of the houses, should be banned from sale.
You are mixing up CO2 emissions as a nation, that stagnated a bit, with CO2 emissions from electricity production, which still is strongly reduced each year.
The complaints of the Polish are a myth. Every energy transport is either planned day ahead or hourly ahead, or in rare cases a minute ahead. There are no surprises. The receiver allways knows what is comming via the interconnect. And more important: why did he buy the power when he is now complaining that it is "to hard to handle"?
Also, do note that your religious hatred of nuclear power has zero grounding in either reality or science Tripple wrong: no religion, no hate, and the two big disasters are a scientific fact...
Average speed of building a nuclear power plant today stood at 7,5 years You forget the ten years or more to get the permit to build it.
you add 5 years on top of that massive outlier to get to your stated number of "twenty years". That is exactly what I did... as we allready know the finish and french reactor wont be finnished after 18 years, but are delayed again. In Germany it would be even worse, do you really think the population would let anyone build a new nuke? Where would you build it? After all it needs to be at a river. Did you check lately how many places we have where you could build one? Oh, most places already have one...
We had quite a set of nuclear accidents, about 10 I recall, hardly a saftey record. We have ten thousands of tons of waste world wide, not a single ton is safely stored somewhere...
The stuff Germany stored has to be digged out again.
Why should I read a forbes link, when I have fraunhofer.de and energy-charts.com, which publish the exact reallity of energy production? The one who is ignorant is you.
Obviously you would not allow conversions from one "dimension", e.g. "length" into another dimension, e.g. "urrency".
However, you can add conversion methods, that is the nice thing in C++. E.g. if you only need yen and dollar, you make two subclasses inheriting from the currency template, add a "toDollars()" method to the Yen class, and a "toYen()" method to the Dollars class.
A unit/dimension system as sketched in the previous post would only allow conversions/assignments inside of the same dimensions, e.g. metric to imperial, by using a common reference unit.
Everything else can be type safe implemented by global operators, e.g. "operator=()" and mathematical operators like "operator*()"
operator=() could be used if you really want to convert hours into dollars, but I rather would express what you really want to do: result = hoursWorked * hourlyWage; Why use a strange conversion?
Because you are using more coal and gas which are required to offset intermittance. No we don't. Energy production changed from 25% nukes + water, 75% coal and gas (1980) to ~50% nukes + renewables and 50% coal and gas (2018). So obviously CO2 production dropped by 1/3rd.
So, how is it physical possible to use more coal and produce more CO2 when you actually produce less power from it?
Wind and solar, which is the subject matter, are not 40% annual generation. But renewables are... last year 38%, this year already at 50%... lets see how the rest of the year goes.
The strawman is that AC is or will bd the biggest power consumer. However one of your other links showed that this is indeed the case in Singapore. Lets see how that evolves for China and India.
/. is full with posts about cheap solar. And if you would be interested in it you would google for solar power instead for nuclear power.
But first I'd like to see the numbers on coal power, because that's the biggest producer of CO2. Replace coal with most anything else and CO2 output is reduced. We reduced coal power by 40%... or how exactly do you think we produce now 40% of our power by renewables if we had not reduced "the other powers"?
Numbers of plants closed and opening is meaningless without knowing the size of the plants. Put it numbers my 11 year old nephew can understand, he wants to be an engineer some day. Super easy: google "wiki german coal plants" and you get a wikipedia page of all plants. Build date. Closing date. Capacity. etc. Can't be so hard to educate yourself.
Italy pays a higher tax rate on electricity that Germany or Denmark, yet their power is lower. Perhaps they do not subsidize renewables as heavily? No they don't pay higher taxes. The tax on energy in Germany is 50% (electricity) to 80% (oil) depending what it is.
You seem to talk about "VAT"... that is only 19% in Germany, what about oil tax, coal tax, CO2 tax, and concessions for transfer?
Sure - maybe they are replacing "old/dirty" plants - but why use new "less dirty" coal plants, if renewables can do it? Because building the plants started 15 or 20 years ago, and were supposed already at that time to replace another plant.
Also Germany has no shale gas production, nor did it ever have any to my knowledge. Depends how you call it. Some call it shale gas, some call it fracking.
Germany did fracking since shortly after WWII, so I don't know if that is equivalent to shale gas.
Which is why it has always driven the anti-nuclear crusade that culminated in Energiewende, which essentially drove Germany off the CO2 reduction track Strange that still Germany is the country, that has reduced its CO2 output the most.
All while US, without any major Germany-style proclamations had the shale and CCGT revolution, and reduced its CO2 emissions significantly. Yeah, and they did this, last 5 years? We do it since 30 years. Guess which "integral over time" reduced CO2 more? Yeah again, US reduced their CO2 output by.... uh? Was it 30%? Germany reduced it by 35%... again: over a 4 times to 6 times longer time frame: so in total "as integral over time" again, to a much bigger degree than the US.
Germany is a small country. If we had a Fukushima like disaster, half of Germany would be gone. If we had a Chernobyl like disaster, all of Germany would be gone.
So you wonder why no german citizen wants nuklear power? And then again: you are an idiot. We started with renewables 40 years ago. Since 20 years we do it massively. Now we have about 40% (this year perhaps even close to 50%) of all our electricity produced by _renewables_ (and on top of that still about 10% by nukes).
If we had started building nukes 20 years ago: none would be finished yet. How the funk can people be so stupid!??
how about yours? Ours started dropping much earlier. Ours dropped much more than yours, too. So the accumulated "saving" is orders of magnitudes higher than yours.
I guess the "poorness thing" is greatly overestimated. E.g. parts of India don't even have electricity. As soon as they have, they also will have AC. Because poor is relative. And then again: the need for AC, or the demand/want for AC is also greatly overestimated by americans. E.g. in Thailand, people you would consider poor, rather buy a car for $40,000 than an AC for $1000 and a bit electricity every month for $20. Of course, I have not been in other asian countries, yet. And not for more than 2 month anyway. So I have no clue how e.g. Bangkok over the course of a year is.
Anyway, AC will always only be a small fraction of electricity consumption. So putting up that straw man makes no sense.
The individual is a very twisted person who thinks that by knocking one nation that has cut their emissions by 30% already Which is close to pointless when you see that the citizens of that nation individually still produce more than most other citizens of other nations.
You simply don't accept the most simplest law of human beings: Q) who has the difficult things to do? A) who, who can!
Why the fuck do you demand stuff from China they are unable to do, but don't be an example and simply do it? Because you are an imperialistic nation of assholes wrecking the planet and laughing about the rest of its inhabitants who suffer. That is why.
Oh sure, on/. are two or three exceptions... and I guess you can even find inside of america some decent people...
The main reason why US is actually better than countries like Germany in reducing the emissions in spite of vocal declarations of the latter and lack of such declarations on the part of the former is the natgas switch. In percentages they are far behind. And Germany has exhausted its shale gas since ages. And if we buy more from Russia, we get flamed:P
Methane is the short to medium term solution to getting CO2 emissions under control. Only if cars etc. get switched, too. And I don't see that going to happen soon.
Slashdot Mirror
The demand for AC can be greatly reduced if you change the architecture.
Family houses in the US do not need to look like an north european one. They could be inspired by Persian or south Asian architecture, e.g. roofs that extend far enough to provide shadow. More trees would help, too.
Modern office buildings, e.g. could have "core cooling", that means the concrete structures are cooled with water. Energy wise such systems are much cheaper.
There are plenty of "modern" AC concepts that cut energy usage down to a tenth. New buildings should be forced to use them, or other way around: the typical "fridge like" ACs that hang outside of the houses, should be banned from sale.
You are mixing up CO2 emissions as a nation, that stagnated a bit, with CO2 emissions from electricity production, which still is strongly reduced each year.
The complaints of the Polish are a myth. Every energy transport is either planned day ahead or hourly ahead, or in rare cases a minute ahead. There are no surprises. The receiver allways knows what is comming via the interconnect. And more important: why did he buy the power when he is now complaining that it is "to hard to handle"?
Also, do note that your religious hatred of nuclear power has zero grounding in either reality or science ...
Tripple wrong: no religion, no hate, and the two big disasters are a scientific fact
Average speed of building a nuclear power plant today stood at 7,5 years
You forget the ten years or more to get the permit to build it.
you add 5 years on top of that massive outlier to get to your stated number of "twenty years". ... as we allready know the finish and french reactor wont be finnished after 18 years, but are delayed again. In Germany it would be even worse, do you really think the population would let anyone build a new nuke? Where would you build it? After all it needs to be at a river. Did you check lately how many places we have where you could build one? Oh, most places already have one ...
That is exactly what I did
We had quite a set of nuclear accidents, about 10 I recall, hardly a saftey record. ...
We have ten thousands of tons of waste world wide, not a single ton is safely stored somewhere
The stuff Germany stored has to be digged out again.
Why should I read a forbes link, when I have fraunhofer.de and energy-charts.com, which publish the exact reallity of energy production?
The one who is ignorant is you.
Obviously you would not allow conversions from one "dimension", e.g. "length" into another dimension, e.g. "urrency".
However, you can add conversion methods, that is the nice thing in C++. E.g. if you only need yen and dollar, you make two subclasses inheriting from the currency template, add a "toDollars()" method to the Yen class, and a "toYen()" method to the Dollars class.
A unit/dimension system as sketched in the previous post would only allow conversions/assignments inside of the same dimensions, e.g. metric to imperial, by using a common reference unit.
Everything else can be type safe implemented by global operators, e.g. "operator=()" and mathematical operators like "operator*()"
operator=() could be used if you really want to convert hours into dollars, but I rather would express what you really want to do: result = hoursWorked * hourlyWage; Why use a strange conversion?
Interesting.
Never heard something like this from my friends in Denmark or Norway.
How much in relation to a wage would such a private insurance cost?
Yes, and what is your point?
Being half way off during a 10 seconds calculation, is quite ok for me.
Base load has nothing to do with predictability or stability.
Base load is a line on a graph, that is all. Why don't you read the wikipedia article?
Because you are using more coal and gas which are required to offset intermittance.
No we don't. Energy production changed from 25% nukes + water, 75% coal and gas (1980) to ~50% nukes + renewables and 50% coal and gas (2018). So obviously CO2 production dropped by 1/3rd.
So, how is it physical possible to use more coal and produce more CO2 when you actually produce less power from it?
Wind and solar, which is the subject matter, are not 40% annual generation. ... last year 38%, this year already at 50% ... lets see how the rest of the year goes.
But renewables are
. Its a complete failure if you're doing anything involving actual research,
Whay would that be the case?
The strawman is that AC is or will bd the biggest power consumer.
However one of your other links showed that this is indeed the case in Singapore.
Lets see how that evolves for China and India.
I'm not concerned about trolls getting points.
I'm just annoyed by idiots modding other idiots up.
People can have their opinions, as retarded as they may are. ... so where to draw the line?
Then again, the mods have opinions, too
/. is full with posts about cheap solar.
And if you would be interested in it you would google for solar power instead for nuclear power.
But first I'd like to see the numbers on coal power, because that's the biggest producer of CO2. Replace coal with most anything else and CO2 output is reduced. ... or how exactly do you think we produce now 40% of our power by renewables if we had not reduced "the other powers"?
We reduced coal power by 40%
Numbers of plants closed and opening is meaningless without knowing the size of the plants. Put it numbers my 11 year old nephew can understand, he wants to be an engineer some day.
Super easy: google "wiki german coal plants" and you get a wikipedia page of all plants. Build date. Closing date. Capacity. etc. Can't be so hard to educate yourself.
Italy pays a higher tax rate on electricity that Germany or Denmark, yet their power is lower. Perhaps they do not subsidize renewables as heavily?
No they don't pay higher taxes.
The tax on energy in Germany is 50% (electricity) to 80% (oil) depending what it is.
You seem to talk about "VAT" ... that is only 19% in Germany, what about oil tax, coal tax, CO2 tax, and concessions for transfer?
Sure - maybe they are replacing "old/dirty" plants - but why use new "less dirty" coal plants, if renewables can do it?
Because building the plants started 15 or 20 years ago, and were supposed already at that time to replace another plant.
I've shown it multiple times yet you argue. CO2/KWh has not significantly reduced in Germany with the expansion of wind and solar starting around 2008
Does not make sense if renewables rose from ~20% to ~40% ...
Should be a no brainer.
How should CO2 per kW/h not shrink if you double the amount of renewable power?
Also Germany has no shale gas production, nor did it ever have any to my knowledge.
Depends how you call it.
Some call it shale gas, some call it fracking.
Germany did fracking since shortly after WWII, so I don't know if that is equivalent to shale gas.
Which is why it has always driven the anti-nuclear crusade that culminated in Energiewende, which essentially drove Germany off the CO2 reduction track
Strange that still Germany is the country, that has reduced its CO2 output the most.
All while US, without any major Germany-style proclamations had the shale and CCGT revolution, and reduced its CO2 emissions significantly. .... uh? Was it 30%? ... again: over a 4 times to 6 times longer time frame: so in total "as integral over time" again, to a much bigger degree than the US.
Yeah, and they did this, last 5 years? We do it since 30 years. Guess which "integral over time" reduced CO2 more?
Yeah again, US reduced their CO2 output by
Germany reduced it by 35%
Germany is a small country. If we had a Fukushima like disaster, half of Germany would be gone.
If we had a Chernobyl like disaster, all of Germany would be gone.
So you wonder why no german citizen wants nuklear power? And then again: you are an idiot. We started with renewables 40 years ago. Since 20 years we do it massively. Now we have about 40% (this year perhaps even close to 50%) of all our electricity produced by _renewables_ (and on top of that still about 10% by nukes).
If we had started building nukes 20 years ago: none would be finished yet. How the funk can people be so stupid!??
how about yours?
Ours started dropping much earlier.
Ours dropped much more than yours, too.
So the accumulated "saving" is orders of magnitudes higher than yours.
I guess the "poorness thing" is greatly overestimated.
E.g. parts of India don't even have electricity. As soon as they have, they also will have AC. Because poor is relative.
And then again: the need for AC, or the demand/want for AC is also greatly overestimated by americans.
E.g. in Thailand, people you would consider poor, rather buy a car for $40,000 than an AC for $1000 and a bit electricity every month for $20.
Of course, I have not been in other asian countries, yet. And not for more than 2 month anyway. So I have no clue how e.g. Bangkok over the course of a year is.
Anyway, AC will always only be a small fraction of electricity consumption. So putting up that straw man makes no sense.
What has base load to do with renewables?
Hint: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Hint 2: read it before they edit the truth out again.
generally producing most at times when it isn't required,
That is nonsense. Solar produces its energy when it is needed, are you retarded?
The individual is a very twisted person who thinks that by knocking one nation that has cut their emissions by 30% already
Which is close to pointless when you see that the citizens of that nation individually still produce more than most other citizens of other nations.
You simply don't accept the most simplest law of human beings:
Q) who has the difficult things to do?
A) who, who can!
Why the fuck do you demand stuff from China they are unable to do, but don't be an example and simply do it?
Because you are an imperialistic nation of assholes wrecking the planet and laughing about the rest of its inhabitants who suffer. That is why.
Oh sure, on /. are two or three exceptions ... and I guess you can even find inside of america some decent people ...
The main reason why US is actually better than countries like Germany in reducing the emissions in spite of vocal declarations of the latter and lack of such declarations on the part of the former is the natgas switch. :P
In percentages they are far behind.
And Germany has exhausted its shale gas since ages.
And if we buy more from Russia, we get flamed
Methane is the short to medium term solution to getting CO2 emissions under control.
Only if cars etc. get switched, too. And I don't see that going to happen soon.
Oh ... ...
Never mind
For one second I lapsed in reading in make "Austria" great again ...
Phuuu! luckily I misread :D
Who ever modded this troll should be stripped of his mod rights ....