The EM drive creates a momentum by pushing virtual particles one way and "moving itself" the other way.

It works exactly as a classical rocket engine.

Your idea is bollocks.

You should have listened in school.

Rocket drives don't push against anything.

Sorry, your post is complete nonsense.

EM dive "theory" is a "forward theory".

Some guy thought: "it should work like that", and now experiments are confirming: "it seems to work like that.

There is no The classic physics mechanism simply shouldn't work.

Actually the drive works exactly according classic physics ... as state before (in other posts): I have no clue why the /. crowd disagrees.

However I'm looking forward for a formula showing that the EM drive can't work.

The crowd here is skeptical because they either don't care to read the relevant (an usually linked) papers or simply lack the physic knowledge to understand them.

So the first thing they always shout is: newtons law and thermodynamics.

Sorry, you plus 5 insightful in less than 10 minutes simply show that 99% of the people here, emphasize moderators have no clue at all about the simplest laws of physics!

How retarded is that?

Most SUNs I work on are SPARC, actually all SUNs I have worked with during the last 15 years where SPARCs.

Did they run Linux? Debian? No! Obviously they ran Sun Solaris. And still do. But I guess there are plenty of shops that abuse big iron to run plenty of virtual machines.

The Debian stance might make sense (for them). Their explanation does not, though.

I second that.
The /. crowd in our days calls everything new a scam ... pretty retarded!

Coal in France is not "base load" power.

It is load following and peak power.

Would be completely idiotic to power down a nuke to produce base load with coal.

The natural gas is probably not split between baseload and peak. Sorry, are you an complete idiot?

France produces over 70% of its power with nukes. And due to its night working reprocessing plants and other night stuff (like heating up household heat reservoirs) it has an extremely high base load of over 60%.

However: all the nukes are far above "base load".

No one is using coal, gas or anything else for "base load" in that situation.

France should convert their hydro from a base load to a peaking source aka as pumped storage. The power stored would come from a combination of both renewables and nuclear.
If Hydro is listed in a report, it is usually "base load" for a reason. Pumped storage is not listed in "energy production by source". The energy needed/used to pump it up is listed instead.

If France had any need for more pumped storage, I assume the "engineers who have a clue" had already initiated such programs :D

BTW: most energy France is importing form Germany is used to refill their pumped storages.

You do not know how grid works. We know it already from your previous idiocy from relevant threads.

As I work for grid and power companies, and have the relevant laws and procedures usually on my desk, I disagree ;D

Renewables that are at risk of losing 100% of their capacity have to have 100% spinning reserve.
Such renewables don't exist.

That is the reality. If you don't, you risk cascade failure across the entire grid.
No it is not, that is an idiotic assumption by idiots like you ;D sorry for being so blunt.

Biggest cut-off issues with wind power are related to too strong winds rather than too weak ones, as that causes near-instant cut-off rather than slow decay of feed in.
Sure ... and when did that happen in the last 30 years? Care to give a reference?

How should it be possible that wind power goes from "normal" to cut off speed in such a short time (and without forcast) that it is impossible to adjust?

Sorry, read a book about the topic and stop pestering me :D Would be appreciated.

I guess you have not even a vague idea how high the wind speed is beyond wind mills are locked down. (But I have a vague idea that there exist in your country no road where you can drive that fast legaly).

Does not matter how you count the 96%.

The ignorant idiot is you ... I give you some links:
http://www.world-nuclear.org/N...

Quote: Enrichment
The vast majority of all nuclear power reactors require 'enriched' uranium fuel in which the proportion of the uranium-235 isotope has been raised from the natural level of 0.7% to about 3.5% to 5%.

http://www.world-nuclear.org/i...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

So? Idiot? You figured it?

It does not matter if you talk about U-235 (which might be 96% burned) or if I talk about U-MOX together, as the number: 96% is conincidentally the same.

If you had any clue about the topic you knew that and had saved your post.

Thanx for your attention.

That is since 2012, it changed slightly. Nevertheless if you understand the picture, Germany is a net exporter. And was that for decades towards France as well.

Can you show me europe wide energy production statistics broken down by energy source?

I'm not aware about such a statistic, but as it sounds interesting I might look deeper into it. But not next weeks, sorry, to busy.

I will read over it, however in the beginning it already stats with stuff like this:

Renewable electricity is proving so unreliable and chaotic that it is starting to undermine the stability of the European grid and provoke international incidents.

Which is simply wrong. Sorry, looks like an article written by journalists who have no clue.

For me, "performance," is where the act meets the audience as much as where the act is carried-out...

Well, then. We should all adopt your definition of the term. There's a reason art is subjective - as long as the consumer and the producer agree that it's a performance, it doesn't matter what you or the dictionary call it.

I see a lot of people getting very passionate when they're probably not terribly knowledgeable about the situation.

Evidently, that includes you.

I don't know what the man's warrants are for, though given the culture surrounding rap and hip-hop I'm guessing that they're not for the same kinds of things that Edward Snowden is wanted for.

His warrants are for missing child support payments. And btw, that's the whole idea behind free speech -- all speech, good, bad, and ugly, is worth protecting.

You are now conflating freedom with intent and quality, which is a slippery slope.

Picking and choosing which power plants you want to say your power is coming from is only relevant on the spreadsheet... not reality.

No it is not. As that is the way how power trading works.

When you import that nuclear power the places you imported it from can't use that nuclear power because YOU took it.
And that place had no need for it anyway otherwise it would not have been on the market ... (*facepalm*)

Which means they have to rely on other power sources.
No, it means they had an overproduction and it was more cost benefit or earning benefit to sell it instead of ramping down a plant.

If I have a nuclear plant running at 85% max and now face a situation where I'm overproducing 20% for 4 hours, it would be pretty dumb to power down the plant. Because in 4 hours when I need the power again I can not ramp up the plant due to neutron poisoning. So it is cheaper for me to sell the power at a loss than losing 6 more hours of power production after the 4 ones I consider to schedule.

Similar for a coal plant, when I know I either can sell surplus for a certain amount of hours or run the plant at inefficient (more expensive) power levels.

What is more, I suspect many of the other countries are double counting non-fossil fuel sources by rephrasing the question or the statistics to say something in one case that outputs one number and then say something that sounds the same but is different and outputs a different number.

Would not work. No idea how you come to so brain dead ideas.

Imagine the simplest grid: a consumer a producer and a power line. The consumer has a meter and knows what he consumed and gets a bill. The producer knows what he fed into the grid, surprisingly the two numbers match, Hence we know if the power plant is a coal plant how much CO2 it produced. Actually we know where the coal is from. Also we know the efficiency of the plant.

And guess what, all grid feed ins, regardless from where and by whom are announced hours if not days ahead by the power producers, so the grid operators know how much "reserve", "balancing" or "compensation" energy they have to provide.

So as I said in another post, there is no "greenwashing". Everyone involved knows europe wide which plant produced how much power at what time of the day. Hence statistics of http://www.ise.fraunhofer.de/ and others are accurate down to less than a ton of coal.

The only people who don't all know this are the idiots writing the FUD web sites against renewables in the USA.

(And: grid operation in the USA works exactly the same as in Germany/Europe. You also have preannounced "feed in" schedules and accumulated "grid schedules")

The idea that Europe wide where a coal shifting mafia producing more CO2 than "we publish" is completely idiotic. After all everything is billed, taxed, has tariffs, and is recorded by the WTO.

Without any comment on your links I don't know what you want to say with them :D And I guess the rest of the readers feel the same.

Perhaps your german is bad? All the links support the positions of people arguing against you.

You claim Poland is building new coal and nuclear plants to export the energy to germany, which is wrong.

Third link, first line of text: "Polen droht bereits 2016 ein Energiedefizit"

Translate.google.com is your friend ... can't be so hard to accept that most of your ideas what is going on between Poland and Germany energy wise are wrong.