Your rant assumes that Oracle would actually use that money to build useful technology.
(In Google's case, they're stuck with this because Oracle brought them to trial and they've got to defend themselves, and it takes lawyers to do that. If they didn't defend themselves, Oracle would win by default and that would be a Bad Thing considering precedence.)
But this? I could do this in pseudo code in seconds and something that would actually compile and run in 10 minutes, tops. (I'm way rusty on language specifics these days...)
*Ok, it's not personally Carmack's magic number, but he's who you'd most likely associate it with
obviously you are hard trying not to grasp anything.
Ok, you know what?
Go build it. Go build solar plants in the Sahara. You're clearly not grasping my point at all, so just do it. Run out to your local hardware store, pick up enough panels and plunk them in the desert. Done! It really must be that simple since the logistics of erecting a plant are a non-issue to you. So go do it. If you can build a bridge out of Lego, you can build a 2400MW solar plant no sweat.
how many percentages of sahara do you need to cover earth yearly need of power?
You know, here's the funny part, I actually did a small subset of those numbers and it apparently wasn't enough for you. I don't even know why I bother replying to you.
And you know what, that doesn't account for additional power necessary due to transmission loss. I'm not even bothering with the rest of the world. 25,000 km^2 is a good number to visualize. (Can't you visualize 25,000 km^2? Hint: Haiti or Massachusetts.) And it doesn't matter that I don't care to grind world wide numbers. It does not matter. And you know why?
Because solar panels and mirrors do not grow on trees and they do not get installed by magic bunnies and you do not wake up the next morning to a beautiful field of fully functioning power plants manned by Applejack and Fluttershy. This is my argument. Right here. Not some column in a ledger with values measured in MW or GW but in actual, tangible product.
How many panels or mirrors will it take to cover 25,000 km^2? Don't you know? How much manpower will it take to create all those panels or mirrors? Don't you know? How many trucks and roads and grid infrastructure will it take to hook this array into the grid? Don't you know? How many maintenance personnel will it take to keep the plant functional? Don't you know? How much water will this process take? Do you even know all the steps in this would require water? Can we even get the raw materials for this?
Don't you know?
Can't you even give an estimate?
So, yeah, the area of Haiti or Massachusetts is a tiny tiny fraction compared to the whole Sahara but you still have to cover that area in power plants.
There's a reason we're trying to give up on corn ethanol. The energy put into getting it was too damn high compared to what we got out of it. And that's the problem in switching to solar right now. As a supplement, it works, but it just isn't efficient enough to match dirty power.
Well, the Internet Generation just hasn't really grasped just how horrific the Battle of Britain was. But hey, those bunkers are only what, 70 years old? Some blood, sweat, toil and tears will get those spit spot in a jiffy. Keep calm and buy our officially licensed London 2012 merchandise!
land for solar plants is an infinite resource. Land is not an infinite resource. Are you unfamiliar with the definition of the word "infinite"?
Hint: deserts. Exactly! Cover the Sahara with solar panels!! Logistics be damned, problem solved!
But on a serious level, just humor me and do this: Visualize a solar plant in a desert. Now, visualize BUILDING it. It's not as simple as clicking the "Solar Plant" icon and the plant and its infrastructure magically appears. You need roads to ship in the materials, wires to attach to the grid, manpower, water to keep them alive, construction equipment...
having 25% of power production done by solar is quite a lot. Obviously you are not aware about how low the percentage of nuclear energy is. Most countries have less than 30%. Germany and Japan (hence the article) are both right now on ZERO.
This isn't just nuclear though, this whole thread started on base load power, which isn't just nuclear power, but also includes coal and natural gas. I included each specifically, but allow me to repeat: coal power creates 342,300 MW of electrical power in the US. Natural gas, 470,300 MW. Nuclear, 106,700 MW.
So just to replace nuclear, the US would need 106,700MW more in solar power. Still not a small number considering the throughput of solar. (550MW recently proposed plant? That's only 2,000 plants to replace nuclear!)
if you are focused on area, then for nuclear plants you have to count the security perimeter around the plant out side of the fence and the waste and the mining.
Area includes perimeter security (which solar plants will need too; if people steal wiring for copper, I wouldn't want to leave solar panels unguarded). However, you are not allowed to include "land outside the fence." If you are unable to get arrested for trespassing walking there, it doesn't count. Period.
Waste I'll give you, however since that tends to be inside a mountain...not exactly prime acreage for building...well...buildings...it doesn't take away from other development.
But if you want to include mining, solar has to be included with that. Photovoltaic cells require rare earth metals. And even if you just mirrors, the reflective material on the back comes from mining.
To replace our 100,000 MW of nuclear we'd need two thousand solar plants. Two thousand.
How many panels or mirrors will it take to fill the needs of 2,000 solar plants? How many operators? How many roads and wires to plug into the grid? How many facilities right now are capable of making the panels or mirrors required? What about the water demands? And again, we need the raw land to develop on and land doesn't come pre-bulldozed.
These are things you're still continuing to overlook, gleefully it seems, and I just cannot figure out why...and I doubt I ever will.
Next time you compare power plants use at least the correct physical units Oh, you're too good for gigawatt hours? That's what electrical companies use to charge you. I would it's a very valid measurement. But fine, I'll appease you and use the ol' generic MW. That doesn't measure consumption, but hey, whatever makes you happy.
the biggest solar plant is surprisingly in the USA, it yields about 370MW. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SEGS The largest solar plant is a complex of nine solar plants in the USA built over 16 years. The largest individual plants only put out 80MW. Minor detail...technically I've been cheating with Diablo Canyon, it's 2 plants.
From the link: The facilities have a total of 936,384 mirrors and cover more than 1,600 acres (6.5 km^2).
Diablo Canyon, meanwhile, sits on 750 acres and outputs a total of 2240MW. 2240MW/750 acre ~= 3 MW/acre. For SEGS, 370MW/1600 acre ~= 0.23 MW/acre.
But hey, we can just whip up a solar facility 12 times the size of a nuke plant in no time flat, right? And land is an infinite resource, right? As are raw materials and production facilities? And construction crews? And the infrastructure to get to where the plants will be built? And it's all free, right? Because all that matters are the raw MW numbers, right?
Look, coal power creates 342,300 MW of electrical power in the US. Natural gas, 470,300 MW. Nuclear, 106,700 MW. Combined, that's 919,300 MW of dirty power. To replace that entirely with solar (because I have those numbers handy) with the land use efficiency of SEGS would take 4,000,000 acres or over 16,000 km^2.
With the efficiency of the proposed Desert Sunlight Solar Farm? 6,100,000 acres. Nearly 25,000 km^2. Assuming all my numbers are right, that would cover well over half of continental Denmark with solar plants.
So all we have to do to replace our dirty power with solar is build a solar plant complex over half the size of Denmark!
And since you mentioned wind, I guess I should give that a passing remark: the biggest windpark right now produces 400MW. Scale that by 3 to 4 and the nuclear reactor is surpassed. The largest onshore wind farm looks like it's actually 781.5 MW. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roscoe_Wind_Farm It covers nearly 100,000 acres (400 km^2)
781.5/100000 ~= 0.008 MW/acre. You want to "scale that up 1.5 times"?
300 / 9000 ~= 0.033 MW/acre. You want to "scale that up 4 times"?
Real life is not SimCity. You don't just click on the "Solar Plant" icon then click where you want it and it starts working.
Your blind remark of "Just make the wind plant 4 times larger!" pretty much solidifies what I've been guessing about you this whole time. To you, it's not a question of land, materials, manpower, no, it's MW. MW is king. Why, looking at it like that, all we have to do is cover the Sahara in solar panels, plug it into the grid and the planet will have its power needs solved for generations! It's so goddamn simple, why hasn't anyone gotten on that?!
I did not check your numbers, but they don't fit in my mind with the numbers I know about.
And that's just rich. "Look, your numbers don't match up with the reality in my head, so they cannot possibly be right." You know what that sort is called in the states? A Republican. If that's what you are, I'm done, cause I can't argue against religion.
Anyway, if you know of better numbers, why didn't you reference them umpteen posts ago? Or are you still relying on the reality in your mind?
The biggest solar plants can easy compare with a singel reactor.
I wasn't going after the "biggest." I was going after "24 hours." Who gives a toss if your solar plant can pump out 4 gajillion watts when the sun is out, if it can't store the heat overnight, what's the point? We don't suddenly not need power once the sun goes down. You'll need something to work during nighttime as well.
Well, the first solar plant capable of running 24 hours will only put out 110GWh/yr. Period. I've cited it. If you can do better, game on.
Yes, I concede that some point, a couple decades most likely, we'll have solar plants capable of both running 24 hours AND matching a nuke plant in throughput. I think (I hope) I mentioned that.
But it is not possible with today's technology.
Until then, we need to build what we know works now while innovating on what will work in the future. And unless you can give some numbers disproving mine, concede I just might have a valid argument as well.
Comparing Diablo Canyon with one single solar plant makes not much sense, or does it for you? Especially as you bring up solar all the time...
My point is: as you could and have build 1000 nuclear plants, you as well can and will build 1000 wind farms or solar plants to replace them.
It's comparing the output of ONE nuclear plant with the output of ONE solar plant. It's a very important comparison, because if we decommission that ONE nuclear plant, we would have to replace it with not one, not ten, but ONE HUNDRED SIXTY FOUR solar plants (and that's just going by the raw numbers. We're not accounting for increasing power demand!)
And now we're getting into issues of raw materials, manpower, land, location, infrastructure, et cetera.
So if you're under the impression that one nuclear plant is equal to one solar plant, I don't think I'm the one focused on a misconception.
Bloody hell, just so we can move out of Theoryland, YES. Any plant can work. BUT...
In practice? Look at the numbers: Diablo Canyon: 18,000 GWh/yr. World's first 24* hour solar plant: 110 GWh/yr.
Get another zero added to the end of that solar plant we might be onto something more than a simple 'proof of concept.'
Incidentally, thanks for the continued pressure. Without it, I wouldn't have been able to numerically express the key point I was trying to make. And it provided for a much bigger and better argument in my favor!
Ellison was not exactly blindsided by this lawsuit. Nor was he blindsided by his day in court. I would expect him, as the Big Cheese, to be briefed on this ahead of time because, well, he's the goddamn Big Cheese.
So, under normal circumstances, if you pulled Ellison off the street and asked "Is the JPL free?" I would expect an "I don't know."
However, when your calendar says, "Lay smack down on Google in court today!!" I'd expect you to have crammed the weeks prior.
Also, we're not looking for a yes/no answer. That only came up after he started hemming and hawing. Something that would not have happened if he was familiar with the licence agreement ahead of time.
You CAN use any type of power for baseload, as long as it runs 24/7/365.
Guess what?
Solar can't do that. (The first plant capable of running 24 hours only came on line less than a year ago and they only expect that during the summer. 20 hours during winter. Plus it's only projected to do 110GWh/yr.) Wind can't do that. Hydroelectric and Geothermal CAN...but they're limited in range.
To compare, Diablo Canyon nuclear plant in So Cal can push over 18,000GWh/yr.
I don't think I need to do the math to show you just how much more 18,000 is over 110.
So, no. We cannot replace our base load with solar, wind, hydro and geothermal (yet).
On July 4, 2011, a company in Spain celebrated an historic moment for the solar industry: Torresol’s 19.9 MW concentrating solar power plant became the first ever to generate uninterrupted electricity for 24 hours straight.
Yep, that sounds like battle tested technology right there...solar plants working for 24 hours is less than a year old.
Although...that's not even what the company is pushing:
Torresol says that the plant will provide electricity for about 20 hours each day on average, with numerous days in the summer seeing 24-hours of supply. So, more like 22/7/365. But, no, really, we'll be fine without those 730 hours.
There are only a few operating commercial-scale plants around the world, and Torresol’s is the only one with a 15-hour molten salt storage capability.
Better not hope for a long stretch of cloudy days...
And that's just baseload power. We're not talking about spikes yet. AND we still have to account for increasing power demand.
Finally... This smaller 19.9 MW power tower plant will generate about 110 GWh per year.
So... 1,041,000 GWh / 110 GWh... All they need are 10,000 of these 22/7/365 solar plants and Japan is GOLD!...Sorry, but this doesn't convince me that we can shut off nukes today. Get back to me in a decade or two.
No one wants to live next to a power plant but they still really really want power.
People always forget the 'base line power' argument, too, and all renewables, so far, can't overcome that reliably. Solar doesn't work at night, wind doesn't work on calm days, hydroelectric and geothermal have geographical limits. But we still need power on calm nights far from dams. We're making progress, but it's still not quite there. (Face it, until things like molten salt batteries stop making headlines, it's not ready for prime time.)
And frankly, I'd rather live next door to a nuke plant (and, I actually sorta do) than be a day's drive from a coal plant.
You're the one arguing there's no difference between mandated vaccination and mandated abortion. And yet I wouldn't argue the latter...strange... All or nothing?
Your rights stop the instant they negatively impact someone else, or, more colloquially, "Your right to swing a fist stops when it reaches my face." There are people legitimately incapable of being vaccinated. Allergies or age for example. They rely on everyone else who can be vaccinated to reduce (and hopefully eliminate) their ever catching the disease.
When you make the conscious effort to not get vaccinated, despite your being medically capable of handling it, you're punching the face of those unable to be vaccinated. Or do you think your right to cause harm trumps their right to avoid it?
You are confusing reasoned argument with sarcastic one-liner:p
I'm certain there's reasonable libertarians out there who actually examine consequences and understand the outcome...but they appear few and far between. Most ones I see comment subscribe to the magic bullet newsletter, though.
The reverse is, of course, total anarchy, but you're obviously perfectly fine with that, right? I mean, if the government CAN'T dictate vaccinations, it can't dictate gun laws or assault or anything else! Thunderdome!!
Slashdot Mirror
Your rant assumes that Oracle would actually use that money to build useful technology.
(In Google's case, they're stuck with this because Oracle brought them to trial and they've got to defend themselves, and it takes lawyers to do that. If they didn't defend themselves, Oracle would win by default and that would be a Bad Thing considering precedence.)
What's logical and what's legal per the law ain't ever exactly been similar.
Because that sort of code is so complex...
Maybe if we're talking about Carmack's Magic Number*, yes, you'd have something
( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fast_inverse_square_root#Overview_of_the_code )
But this?
I could do this in pseudo code in seconds and something that would actually compile and run in 10 minutes, tops. (I'm way rusty on language specifics these days...)
*Ok, it's not personally Carmack's magic number, but he's who you'd most likely associate it with
obviously you are hard trying not to grasp anything.
Ok, you know what?
Go build it. Go build solar plants in the Sahara. You're clearly not grasping my point at all, so just do it. Run out to your local hardware store, pick up enough panels and plunk them in the desert. Done! It really must be that simple since the logistics of erecting a plant are a non-issue to you. So go do it. If you can build a bridge out of Lego, you can build a 2400MW solar plant no sweat.
Not a digital clock.
how many percentages of sahara do you need to cover earth yearly need of power?
You know, here's the funny part, I actually did a small subset of those numbers and it apparently wasn't enough for you. I don't even know why I bother replying to you.
In order to replace all dirty power (coal, natgas and nukes) in the US with solar, with the efficiency of the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desert_Sunlight_Solar_Farm would take 6,100,000 acres. Nearly 25,000 km^2.
THERE'S YOUR GODDAMN NUMBER: 25,000 km^2.
And you know what, that doesn't account for additional power necessary due to transmission loss. I'm not even bothering with the rest of the world. 25,000 km^2 is a good number to visualize. (Can't you visualize 25,000 km^2? Hint: Haiti or Massachusetts.) And it doesn't matter that I don't care to grind world wide numbers. It does not matter. And you know why?
Because solar panels and mirrors do not grow on trees and they do not get installed by magic bunnies and you do not wake up the next morning to a beautiful field of fully functioning power plants manned by Applejack and Fluttershy. This is my argument. Right here. Not some column in a ledger with values measured in MW or GW but in actual, tangible product.
How many panels or mirrors will it take to cover 25,000 km^2? Don't you know?
How much manpower will it take to create all those panels or mirrors? Don't you know?
How many trucks and roads and grid infrastructure will it take to hook this array into the grid? Don't you know?
How many maintenance personnel will it take to keep the plant functional? Don't you know?
How much water will this process take? Do you even know all the steps in this would require water?
Can we even get the raw materials for this?
Don't you know?
Can't you even give an estimate?
So, yeah, the area of Haiti or Massachusetts is a tiny tiny fraction compared to the whole Sahara but you still have to cover that area in power plants.
There's a reason we're trying to give up on corn ethanol. The energy put into getting it was too damn high compared to what we got out of it. And that's the problem in switching to solar right now. As a supplement, it works, but it just isn't efficient enough to match dirty power.
"Assume unlimited manpower and materials..."
And emissions from coal fired plants...and living in a concrete building...
We can't avoid it... but we can limit it.
Some of us limit it better than others!
Well, the Internet Generation just hasn't really grasped just how horrific the Battle of Britain was.
But hey, those bunkers are only what, 70 years old? Some blood, sweat, toil and tears will get those spit spot in a jiffy.
Keep calm and buy our officially licensed London 2012 merchandise!
land for solar plants is an infinite resource.
Land is not an infinite resource. Are you unfamiliar with the definition of the word "infinite"?
Hint: deserts.
Exactly! Cover the Sahara with solar panels!! Logistics be damned, problem solved!
But on a serious level, just humor me and do this: Visualize a solar plant in a desert. Now, visualize BUILDING it.
It's not as simple as clicking the "Solar Plant" icon and the plant and its infrastructure magically appears. You need roads to ship in the materials, wires to attach to the grid, manpower, water to keep them alive, construction equipment...
having 25% of power production done by solar is quite a lot. Obviously you are not aware about how low the percentage of nuclear energy is. Most countries have less than 30%. Germany and Japan (hence the article) are both right now on ZERO.
This isn't just nuclear though, this whole thread started on base load power, which isn't just nuclear power, but also includes coal and natural gas. I included each specifically, but allow me to repeat:
coal power creates 342,300 MW of electrical power in the US. Natural gas, 470,300 MW. Nuclear, 106,700 MW.
So just to replace nuclear, the US would need 106,700MW more in solar power. Still not a small number considering the throughput of solar. (550MW recently proposed plant? That's only 2,000 plants to replace nuclear!)
if you are focused on area, then for nuclear plants you have to count the security perimeter around the plant out side of the fence and the waste and the mining.
Area includes perimeter security (which solar plants will need too; if people steal wiring for copper, I wouldn't want to leave solar panels unguarded). However, you are not allowed to include "land outside the fence." If you are unable to get arrested for trespassing walking there, it doesn't count. Period.
Waste I'll give you, however since that tends to be inside a mountain...not exactly prime acreage for building...well...buildings...it doesn't take away from other development.
But if you want to include mining, solar has to be included with that. Photovoltaic cells require rare earth metals. And even if you just mirrors, the reflective material on the back comes from mining.
To replace our 100,000 MW of nuclear we'd need two thousand solar plants.
Two thousand.
How many panels or mirrors will it take to fill the needs of 2,000 solar plants?
How many operators?
How many roads and wires to plug into the grid?
How many facilities right now are capable of making the panels or mirrors required?
What about the water demands?
And again, we need the raw land to develop on and land doesn't come pre-bulldozed.
These are things you're still continuing to overlook, gleefully it seems, and I just cannot figure out why...and I doubt I ever will.
Next time you compare power plants use at least the correct physical units
Oh, you're too good for gigawatt hours? That's what electrical companies use to charge you. I would it's a very valid measurement. But fine, I'll appease you and use the ol' generic MW. That doesn't measure consumption, but hey, whatever makes you happy.
the biggest solar plant is surprisingly in the USA, it yields about 370MW.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SEGS
The largest solar plant is a complex of nine solar plants in the USA built over 16 years. The largest individual plants only put out 80MW. Minor detail...technically I've been cheating with Diablo Canyon, it's 2 plants.
From the link:
The facilities have a total of 936,384 mirrors and cover more than 1,600 acres (6.5 km^2).
Diablo Canyon, meanwhile, sits on 750 acres and outputs a total of 2240MW. 2240MW/750 acre ~= 3 MW/acre.
For SEGS, 370MW/1600 acre ~= 0.23 MW/acre.
Even worse, a proposed plant, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desert_Sunlight_Solar_Farm , will generate 550MW over 16km^2, or 4,000 acres. 550MW/4000 acres ~= 0.15 MW/acre.
But hey, we can just whip up a solar facility 12 times the size of a nuke plant in no time flat, right?
And land is an infinite resource, right? As are raw materials and production facilities? And construction crews? And the infrastructure to get to where the plants will be built? And it's all free, right? Because all that matters are the raw MW numbers, right?
Look, coal power creates 342,300 MW of electrical power in the US. Natural gas, 470,300 MW. Nuclear, 106,700 MW.
Combined, that's 919,300 MW of dirty power. To replace that entirely with solar (because I have those numbers handy) with the land use efficiency of SEGS would take 4,000,000 acres or over 16,000 km^2.
With the efficiency of the proposed Desert Sunlight Solar Farm? 6,100,000 acres. Nearly 25,000 km^2.
Assuming all my numbers are right, that would cover well over half of continental Denmark with solar plants.
So all we have to do to replace our dirty power with solar is build a solar plant complex over half the size of Denmark!
And since you mentioned wind, I guess I should give that a passing remark:
the biggest windpark right now produces 400MW. Scale that by 3 to 4 and the nuclear reactor is surpassed.
The largest onshore wind farm looks like it's actually 781.5 MW. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roscoe_Wind_Farm
It covers nearly 100,000 acres (400 km^2)
781.5/100000 ~= 0.008 MW/acre. You want to "scale that up 1.5 times"?
Ok, that one might be unfair. How about http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horse_Hollow_Wind_Energy_Center ? 2nd largest. 735.5MW over a much more compact 47,000 acres (190 km^2).
735.5/47000 ~= 0.016 MW/acre. Hrm, not that much better. You still want to "scale that up 1.5 times" too?
Offshore wind farms can be more tightly compressed at least. The largest there is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thanet_Wind_Farm , 300MW over 9,000 acres (35 km^2)
300 / 9000 ~= 0.033 MW/acre. You want to "scale that up 4 times"?
Real life is not SimCity.
You don't just click on the "Solar Plant" icon then click where you want it and it starts working.
Your blind remark of "Just make the wind plant 4 times larger!" pretty much solidifies what I've been guessing about you this whole time. To you, it's not a question of land, materials, manpower, no, it's MW. MW is king. Why, looking at it like that, all we have to do is cover the Sahara in solar panels, plug it into the grid and the planet will have its power needs solved for generations! It's so goddamn simple, why hasn't anyone gotten on that?!
Moving the goal line again?
I did not check your numbers, but they don't fit in my mind with the numbers I know about.
And that's just rich. "Look, your numbers don't match up with the reality in my head, so they cannot possibly be right." You know what that sort is called in the states? A Republican. If that's what you are, I'm done, cause I can't argue against religion.
Anyway, if you know of better numbers, why didn't you reference them umpteen posts ago? Or are you still relying on the reality in your mind?
The biggest solar plants can easy compare with a singel reactor.
I wasn't going after the "biggest." I was going after "24 hours." Who gives a toss if your solar plant can pump out 4 gajillion watts when the sun is out, if it can't store the heat overnight, what's the point? We don't suddenly not need power once the sun goes down. You'll need something to work during nighttime as well.
Well, the first solar plant capable of running 24 hours will only put out 110GWh/yr. Period. I've cited it. If you can do better, game on.
Yes, I concede that some point, a couple decades most likely, we'll have solar plants capable of both running 24 hours AND matching a nuke plant in throughput. I think (I hope) I mentioned that.
But it is not possible with today's technology.
Until then, we need to build what we know works now while innovating on what will work in the future.
And unless you can give some numbers disproving mine, concede I just might have a valid argument as well.
Comparing Diablo Canyon with one single solar plant makes not much sense, or does it for you? Especially as you bring up solar all the time ...
My point is: as you could and have build 1000 nuclear plants, you as well can and will build 1000 wind farms or solar plants to replace them.
It's comparing the output of ONE nuclear plant with the output of ONE solar plant. It's a very important comparison, because if we decommission that ONE nuclear plant, we would have to replace it with not one, not ten, but ONE HUNDRED SIXTY FOUR solar plants (and that's just going by the raw numbers. We're not accounting for increasing power demand!)
And now we're getting into issues of raw materials, manpower, land, location, infrastructure, et cetera.
So if you're under the impression that one nuclear plant is equal to one solar plant, I don't think I'm the one focused on a misconception.
You only need to build the fucking plants
Bloody hell, just so we can move out of Theoryland, YES. Any plant can work. BUT...
In practice? Look at the numbers:
Diablo Canyon: 18,000 GWh/yr.
World's first 24* hour solar plant: 110 GWh/yr.
Get another zero added to the end of that solar plant we might be onto something more than a simple 'proof of concept.'
Incidentally, thanks for the continued pressure. Without it, I wouldn't have been able to numerically express the key point I was trying to make. And it provided for a much bigger and better argument in my favor!
Ellison was not exactly blindsided by this lawsuit. Nor was he blindsided by his day in court. I would expect him, as the Big Cheese, to be briefed on this ahead of time because, well, he's the goddamn Big Cheese.
So, under normal circumstances, if you pulled Ellison off the street and asked "Is the JPL free?" I would expect an "I don't know."
However, when your calendar says, "Lay smack down on Google in court today!!" I'd expect you to have crammed the weeks prior.
Also, we're not looking for a yes/no answer. That only came up after he started hemming and hawing. Something that would not have happened if he was familiar with the licence agreement ahead of time.
You CAN use any type of power for baseload, as long as it runs 24/7/365.
Guess what?
Solar can't do that. (The first plant capable of running 24 hours only came on line less than a year ago and they only expect that during the summer. 20 hours during winter. Plus it's only projected to do 110GWh/yr.)
Wind can't do that.
Hydroelectric and Geothermal CAN...but they're limited in range.
To compare, Diablo Canyon nuclear plant in So Cal can push over 18,000GWh/yr.
I don't think I need to do the math to show you just how much more 18,000 is over 110.
So, no. We cannot replace our base load with solar, wind, hydro and geothermal (yet).
Solar thermal works 24/7/356.
It does?!
On July 4, 2011, a company in Spain celebrated an historic moment for the solar industry: Torresol’s 19.9 MW concentrating solar power plant became the first ever to generate uninterrupted electricity for 24 hours straight.
Yep, that sounds like battle tested technology right there...solar plants working for 24 hours is less than a year old.
Although...that's not even what the company is pushing:
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2011/07/05/260438/solar-can-be-baseload-spanish-csp-plant-with-storage-produces-electricity-for-24-hours-straight/
Torresol says that the plant will provide electricity for about 20 hours each day on average, with numerous days in the summer seeing 24-hours of supply.
So, more like 22/7/365. But, no, really, we'll be fine without those 730 hours.
There are only a few operating commercial-scale plants around the world, and Torresol’s is the only one with a 15-hour molten salt storage capability.
Better not hope for a long stretch of cloudy days...
And that's just baseload power. We're not talking about spikes yet. AND we still have to account for increasing power demand.
Finally...
This smaller 19.9 MW power tower plant will generate about 110 GWh per year.
( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electricity_sector_in_Japan for the next line) ... 1,041 TWh in 2009
According to the IEA the Japan gross production of electricity was
So... 1,041,000 GWh / 110 GWh ... All they need are 10,000 of these 22/7/365 solar plants and Japan is GOLD! ...Sorry, but this doesn't convince me that we can shut off nukes today. Get back to me in a decade or two.
So, the counterargument is "an accident at the coal plant will not kill me and my family, contaminate the town and render it uninhabitable"?
No one wants to live next to a power plant but they still really really want power.
People always forget the 'base line power' argument, too, and all renewables, so far, can't overcome that reliably. Solar doesn't work at night, wind doesn't work on calm days, hydroelectric and geothermal have geographical limits. But we still need power on calm nights far from dams. We're making progress, but it's still not quite there. (Face it, until things like molten salt batteries stop making headlines, it's not ready for prime time.)
And frankly, I'd rather live next door to a nuke plant (and, I actually sorta do) than be a day's drive from a coal plant.
You're the one arguing there's no difference between mandated vaccination and mandated abortion. And yet I wouldn't argue the latter...strange... All or nothing?
Your rights stop the instant they negatively impact someone else, or, more colloquially, "Your right to swing a fist stops when it reaches my face." There are people legitimately incapable of being vaccinated. Allergies or age for example. They rely on everyone else who can be vaccinated to reduce (and hopefully eliminate) their ever catching the disease.
When you make the conscious effort to not get vaccinated, despite your being medically capable of handling it, you're punching the face of those unable to be vaccinated. Or do you think your right to cause harm trumps their right to avoid it?
You are confusing reasoned argument with sarcastic one-liner :p
I'm certain there's reasonable libertarians out there who actually examine consequences and understand the outcome...but they appear few and far between. Most ones I see comment subscribe to the magic bullet newsletter, though.
Meh, rather go for death penalty with no chance for appeal.
In a nutshell, I just don't want $40k a year spent on them.
Maybe we should make them work in a pediatric care center as a janitor or something...I'm just tired of PRISON!! as the go-to solution all the time.
Hooray! The slippery slope!
The reverse is, of course, total anarchy, but you're obviously perfectly fine with that, right? I mean, if the government CAN'T dictate vaccinations, it can't dictate gun laws or assault or anything else! Thunderdome!!
And as you see from the response to this posting, libertarians are not immune from idiocy.
I thought that was a prerequisite...