So we see that the costs of electricity to consumers in Denmark and Germany and the UK are much higher than in the US. We see that Denmark and the UK have lots of offshore wind capacity (most in the world). We see that offshore wind is much more expensive (LCOE) than other options in the US. And it's nonsensical to draw a conclusion that they may be related? Logic fail...
Power to the mainland, you say? So something like a "transmission line" will be built? Well then - put the turbines on land, run a transmission line - and you're done! No need for offshore, is there?
No, what is nonsensical is you ranting about coal in Australia. Again, look at the link and see that offshore wind is behind onshore wind and PVs. It only beats biogas in terms of costs. All other "green" energy sources (other than biogas) have a lower LCOE. So why push nearly the most expensive option?
It's that damn Vast Right Wing Conspiracy still at work. Making the DNC move money around illegally, forcing Hillary! and the State Department to hide e-mails, and even causing the Russians to get involved. It's all Rush Limbaugh, dontcha know!
Then take a look at the levelized cost of electricity and you'll see that offshore wind is well behind onshore wind and PV. Why would someone champion the most expensive, highest maintenance source of energy?
OK, so why is offshore wind about the worst source of electricity when you look at the levelized cost? It lags behind onshore wind and PV - significantly. Costs for offshore are very high - and maintenance is a big killer. Should you abandon after 20 years? Probably not - but the reality is your return is MUCH closer to what I posted (0.82%) than what the GP posted (6%).
Take a look at the graph in my post; PV and onshore wind are much lower cost than offshore wind. Offshore wind simply has really high startup costs that hamper it on a levelized cost over time. It comes out behind everything save biogas.
So how long do they last? You castigate Ravenshrike for pulling things out of his butt, but you do the same and say they will be active for much longer than 20 years.
Additionally, direct spray isn't needed to corrode your metal. Ask anyone who lives near the ocean - direct exposure isn't needed, and most salt spray/salt fog tests do not need to directly spray saltwater at the object - just high salt content moisture in the air is damaging.
Lastly, given that Denmark has extremely high power rates (about 3X that in the US), perhaps they are the perfect example of why offshore wind is not really a good bet - the power generated is very expensive due to very high maintenance costs. What I see is that offshore wind maintenance costs are on par with the TOTAL cost of electricity for much of the US. Just maintenance alone costs more than the entire cost of power generation. That's not a good sign...
How much does offshore wind power cost, per MWhr? Perhaps, as a former marine engineer, he realizes that whilst it can be done, it cannot be done affordably, and when you consider the prices that places like Denmark and the UK (which leads the world in offshore wind generation) charge three to four times the rate as in the US, it suddenly loses a lot of its luster, doesn't it? Not a surprise given that offshore wind is a lot more expensive than alternatives, when it's levelized, even against fossil fuels...
What are the costs for that offshore wind electricity? Germany is about 3X that of the US and Denmark, the leader in offshore wind generation, pays even more. So yeah - they can do it, but it's quite expensive. Perhaps there are more cost effective means of generating power?
Building anything to handle a 100% salt spray exposure dramatically increases the cost. Have a boat on a lake? Takes some maintenance. Have the same boat on the ocean/saltwater harbor and required maintenance skyrockets. Saltwater is incredibly corrosive. What works in fresh water will quickly die in saltwater (even stainless steel will corrode away in saltwater). Add in parts that have full 360 degree spins so open bearing races (sure, lubricated - but still open) and you're asking for a lot of trouble.
On land, you can use a lot of materials that simply will not hold up to constant salt spray exposure (like aluminum).
Note: it takes 17 years to recoup your initial investment; you'll make profit only for the last 3 years of the 20 year lifespan. Assuming the annual income rate is (1/17 * 300 million) $17.6 million, you're looking to make $53 million on that investment, over a 20 year period. That's about a 0.82% rate. And that assumes your maintenance costs are zero...
MFI program is Apple 'drm'. Apple can dictate the capabilities and the headphones that connect directly to the port. Think about Apple owning beats.
Bluetooth audio has no DRM. And they certainly allow a bunch of NON-MFI-Approved cables and adapters already.
Really? What cables and adapters? Because other sources say otherwise, and - since I have developed MFi products before - I know you must have an actual MFi authentication chip in order to negotiate with iOS to enable basically anything. Getting the chips requires enrolling in the MFi program, providing Apple with full details of what you want to make (and it better be compliant with the 1000+ page spec updated every 2 months), show that it passes all MFi certification testing, and then you can buy your MFi authentication chips (rather, your manufacturer can - you, the brand or designer, cannot - it is bought only by the manufacturer).
Now, you can get grey market chips (buy out overstock units) but that's a dicey market to deal in because it's not a steady supply. So you choice is play ball with Apple or don't play at all.
Good luck buying an MFi chip without getting prior Apple approval (of your company AND the product, ensuring it meets all Apple requirements such as single interfaces, etc.) via registering with Apple, then submitting your MFi Certification results. You can't buy the chips without doing that. Sure, you can get some grey market chips, but that market is spotty as Apple tends to shut down folks reselling MFi authentication chips.
The DAC in the phone runs off of already-regulated voltage rails. For an MFi DAC, you get power (up to 100 mA, mind you - no more) from the phone that is unregulated, then need to do local regulation - as well as maintain additional digital handshaking. So there will be more power lost with the external DAC. Plus the fussiness of having Yet Another Thing To Carry...
Precisely! I mean, imagine if Apple had actually created and implemented it's own DRM standard, then it would be just like every other company. Except that it controlled the DRM experience from beginning to end...
I guess movies about being assassinated - or having ACTUAL assassination attempts (or successes) - isn't any worse than questioning your birth or religion? Being called a subhuman in main stream media is equal to getting questioned about releasing your collegiate transcripts? Seriously? Obama's been handled with kid gloves by the vast majority of the media...
Slashdot Mirror
Monty Python Life of Brian. Watch and learn.
You don't understand - it's the guys who stole all of Matt Johnson's best work before he could release it with his band The The.
So we see that the costs of electricity to consumers in Denmark and Germany and the UK are much higher than in the US. We see that Denmark and the UK have lots of offshore wind capacity (most in the world). We see that offshore wind is much more expensive (LCOE) than other options in the US. And it's nonsensical to draw a conclusion that they may be related? Logic fail...
Power to the mainland, you say? So something like a "transmission line" will be built? Well then - put the turbines on land, run a transmission line - and you're done! No need for offshore, is there?
No, what is nonsensical is you ranting about coal in Australia. Again, look at the link and see that offshore wind is behind onshore wind and PVs. It only beats biogas in terms of costs. All other "green" energy sources (other than biogas) have a lower LCOE. So why push nearly the most expensive option?
It's that damn Vast Right Wing Conspiracy still at work. Making the DNC move money around illegally, forcing Hillary! and the State Department to hide e-mails, and even causing the Russians to get involved. It's all Rush Limbaugh, dontcha know!
Then take a look at the levelized cost of electricity and you'll see that offshore wind is well behind onshore wind and PV. Why would someone champion the most expensive, highest maintenance source of energy?
OK, so why is offshore wind about the worst source of electricity when you look at the levelized cost? It lags behind onshore wind and PV - significantly. Costs for offshore are very high - and maintenance is a big killer. Should you abandon after 20 years? Probably not - but the reality is your return is MUCH closer to what I posted (0.82%) than what the GP posted (6%).
I got downmodded for an Office Space reference. What has /. fallen to?
Take a look at the graph in my post; PV and onshore wind are much lower cost than offshore wind. Offshore wind simply has really high startup costs that hamper it on a levelized cost over time. It comes out behind everything save biogas.
So how long do they last? You castigate Ravenshrike for pulling things out of his butt, but you do the same and say they will be active for much longer than 20 years.
Additionally, direct spray isn't needed to corrode your metal. Ask anyone who lives near the ocean - direct exposure isn't needed, and most salt spray/salt fog tests do not need to directly spray saltwater at the object - just high salt content moisture in the air is damaging.
Lastly, given that Denmark has extremely high power rates (about 3X that in the US), perhaps they are the perfect example of why offshore wind is not really a good bet - the power generated is very expensive due to very high maintenance costs. What I see is that offshore wind maintenance costs are on par with the TOTAL cost of electricity for much of the US. Just maintenance alone costs more than the entire cost of power generation. That's not a good sign...
How much does offshore wind power cost, per MWhr? Perhaps, as a former marine engineer, he realizes that whilst it can be done, it cannot be done affordably, and when you consider the prices that places like Denmark and the UK (which leads the world in offshore wind generation) charge three to four times the rate as in the US, it suddenly loses a lot of its luster, doesn't it? Not a surprise given that offshore wind is a lot more expensive than alternatives, when it's levelized, even against fossil fuels...
What are the costs for that offshore wind electricity? Germany is about 3X that of the US and Denmark, the leader in offshore wind generation, pays even more. So yeah - they can do it, but it's quite expensive. Perhaps there are more cost effective means of generating power?
Building anything to handle a 100% salt spray exposure dramatically increases the cost. Have a boat on a lake? Takes some maintenance. Have the same boat on the ocean/saltwater harbor and required maintenance skyrockets. Saltwater is incredibly corrosive. What works in fresh water will quickly die in saltwater (even stainless steel will corrode away in saltwater). Add in parts that have full 360 degree spins so open bearing races (sure, lubricated - but still open) and you're asking for a lot of trouble.
On land, you can use a lot of materials that simply will not hold up to constant salt spray exposure (like aluminum).
Note: it takes 17 years to recoup your initial investment; you'll make profit only for the last 3 years of the 20 year lifespan. Assuming the annual income rate is (1/17 * 300 million) $17.6 million, you're looking to make $53 million on that investment, over a 20 year period. That's about a 0.82% rate. And that assumes your maintenance costs are zero...
What does that have to do with using TPS on a mainframe?
Wrong fucking cover sheet was used. That's what's it has to do with it!
It's also why phones don't have styli available, nor removeable batteries, too!
And it's still lags behind CD quality...
MFI program is Apple 'drm'. Apple can dictate the capabilities and the headphones that connect directly to the port. Think about Apple owning beats.
Bluetooth audio has no DRM. And they certainly allow a bunch of NON-MFI-Approved cables and adapters already.
Really? What cables and adapters? Because other sources say otherwise, and - since I have developed MFi products before - I know you must have an actual MFi authentication chip in order to negotiate with iOS to enable basically anything. Getting the chips requires enrolling in the MFi program, providing Apple with full details of what you want to make (and it better be compliant with the 1000+ page spec updated every 2 months), show that it passes all MFi certification testing, and then you can buy your MFi authentication chips (rather, your manufacturer can - you, the brand or designer, cannot - it is bought only by the manufacturer).
Now, you can get grey market chips (buy out overstock units) but that's a dicey market to deal in because it's not a steady supply. So you choice is play ball with Apple or don't play at all.
Good luck buying an MFi chip without getting prior Apple approval (of your company AND the product, ensuring it meets all Apple requirements such as single interfaces, etc.) via registering with Apple, then submitting your MFi Certification results. You can't buy the chips without doing that. Sure, you can get some grey market chips, but that market is spotty as Apple tends to shut down folks reselling MFi authentication chips.
The DAC in the phone runs off of already-regulated voltage rails. For an MFi DAC, you get power (up to 100 mA, mind you - no more) from the phone that is unregulated, then need to do local regulation - as well as maintain additional digital handshaking. So there will be more power lost with the external DAC. Plus the fussiness of having Yet Another Thing To Carry...
Well, they did it once, who's to say they won't do it again?
Precisely! I mean, imagine if Apple had actually created and implemented it's own DRM standard, then it would be just like every other company. Except that it controlled the DRM experience from beginning to end...
I guess movies about being assassinated - or having ACTUAL assassination attempts (or successes) - isn't any worse than questioning your birth or religion? Being called a subhuman in main stream media is equal to getting questioned about releasing your collegiate transcripts? Seriously? Obama's been handled with kid gloves by the vast majority of the media...
Other than pretty much every previous President, you mean...