XKCD's shitty advice is protecting against brute force attacks by using length (even though in many cases the effective length is still limited to something stupid like 16 characters). By following XKCD's shitty advice, you open yourself up to statistical attacks - your search space is just a combination of a few words. People generally only use a few thousand words, and when you want them to be random about it they'll likely pick common ones, fairly short ones, mostly nouns, etc.
4 words from a list of 1000 words = 10^12 possible passwords
10,000 uncommon words, 4 symbol replacements on average , 2 digits of numbers , numbers at the start or end. capital/non capital at the start.
10,000 * 16 * 2 * 2 * 2 = 1.28 * 10^7.
A lot less passwords.
Any other ways you can think of to increase the passwords complexity?
Humans are terrible at being random. Any magician, con-artist, or statistician will tell you that. The most commonly-picked "random" cards are the ace of spades and the queen of hearts, for example. The 4 "random" words scenario will give you a search space many orders of magnitude smaller than a good, traditional password.
That is why you need a randomizer to pick the words rather then you picking them.
I'd say you live in a warm climate.. Cloudy days means more energy in colder climates. France uses at its peak about 100 GWatts of electricity. Say you'll need at least 10 hours of battery storage, then you are talking about 1 TWh of power storage for 100% replacement by PV..
So a peak that lasts 10 hours?
If fact the 40% peak PV is for a Sunny Sunday afternoon, so a lot further away from 80% than you think..
So storage is even further away from being needed?
Was that the company that brought near GPS spectrum despite it being regulated for something different then what they wanted and then the FCC would not change it too what they wanted?
Slashdot Mirror
XKCD's shitty advice is protecting against brute force attacks by using length (even though in many cases the effective length is still limited to something stupid like 16 characters). By following XKCD's shitty advice, you open yourself up to statistical attacks - your search space is just a combination of a few words. People generally only use a few thousand words, and when you want them to be random about it they'll likely pick common ones, fairly short ones, mostly nouns, etc.
4 words from a list of 1000 words = 10^12 possible passwords
10,000 uncommon words, 4 symbol replacements on average , 2 digits of numbers , numbers at the start or end. capital/non capital at the start.
10,000 * 16 * 2 * 2 * 2 = 1.28 * 10^7.
A lot less passwords.
Any other ways you can think of to increase the passwords complexity?
Humans are terrible at being random. Any magician, con-artist, or statistician will tell you that. The most commonly-picked "random" cards are the ace of spades and the queen of hearts, for example. The 4 "random" words scenario will give you a search space many orders of magnitude smaller than a good, traditional password.
That is why you need a randomizer to pick the words rather then you picking them.
I'd say you live in a warm climate.. Cloudy days means more energy in colder climates. France uses at its peak about 100 GWatts of electricity. Say you'll need at least 10 hours of battery storage, then you are talking about 1 TWh of power storage for 100% replacement by PV. .
So a peak that lasts 10 hours?
If fact the 40% peak PV is for a Sunny Sunday afternoon, so a lot further away from 80% than you think. .
So storage is even further away from being needed?
It would probably use something like Steganography.
Which makes it about $9 to $3(wind) when you figure % of usage.
And if we go to the actual data at http://en.openei.org/apps/TCDB... and not a cached version we get a different view.
The market also goes to QLD,,NSW and TAS.
SA still is getting less then zero prices now.
Such as all the universal health care systems paying less(public + private) as a percentage of GDP the the US government spends on health?
So I presume you are not a big fan of mammals but instead reptiles. They were the dominate species after all during that period.
And how much CO2 has nature taken out over that time period?
Was that the company that brought near GPS spectrum despite it being regulated for something different then what they wanted and then the FCC would not change it too what they wanted?
I see, that is different then what I thought it was like.
I think I see the confusion.
Wholesale price = -2.5c + feed in tariff 3c = .5c profit.
I was calculating the feed in tariff separate from the wholesale price.
Unless you still have to pay the 12/KWh for your usage.
if the feed in tariff is 3c . Then so long as the operator can sell power for more then -2.9c he will do so.
(possibly even -3.1 if their was a cost in shutting down)
I thought it was DDT resistant mosquitoes
t can be estimated that at current rates each kilo of insecticide added to the environment will generate 105 new cases of malaria
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
And we can build a nuclear plant in how many years?
Or they want local power to trump state to trump federal.
I am not saying to use that site. It is still an active mine . I am just using it as an example of the size of the hole needed.
(you may be able to halve the number by using the amount dug out to form a upper reservoir too)
The main problem with this method is of course the cost.
And you have only flooded the US to 34m. Somehow I think the US is not 34m from it's lowest to highest.
(We actually only need 3.28767123 × 10^14 BTU for daily storage)
Capacity of Bingham Canyon Mine = 3,220 billion gallons. (or 1.2 *10^10 m^3) (120 times more water)
Height 0.97 km ( Or an average of 5*100m) compared with an average of (1 .21* 100m) for Ludington (~5 times as much power for each L)
Using the calculations on pumped storage from wikipedia if you pumped water out of Bingham and let it flow back in.
1.2 *10^10 * 5 * .272 Kwh * 70% in BTU = 3.8980306 × 10^13 BTU / day (so probably 10 or so not 5)
(size in m^3) * (number of 50m height increments) * .272Kwh * 70%
using the same calculations for Ludington
8.36645409 × 10^10 BTU (Average fall of 120m)
(based on the local one here , it is 10 hours max output not 13 hours)
(And in your case the lower reservoir would be the ocean)
Rough estimate
120 quadrillion BTU /year http://www.eia.gov/totalenergy...
using https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... 0.272 kWh per 1m^3 per 100m height
square root of (120 quadrillion btu / 365 / 70% / 0.272 kWh * 1 m^3 /100m) = 71km.
(or in other words 71km *71km *100m at a height of 100m from the lower lake will stall enough power for the average day.
Or to put it in perspective about 5 holes the size of Bingham Canyon Mine
Even if coal is more expensive in Africa then solar once you include the building of the grid?
We also know from history that during those periods humans were not their. I.e those conditions are not good for humans.
I think if I recall they did build a high enough seawall, the problem was the ground fell which was not counted.
So the ISP is selling a service, then when people try to use the service as it was advertised it turns out they can't actually provide it.