Given that he has driven DB development for several decades, it's surprising this award took this long.

> Still, the over-arching point that I felt was useful was that criticism is not well-received at Apple

But what proof? The examples in the article were all about *end users* complaining about his posts. Fanbois. Just tune them out.

The evidence that *Apple* takes action (or even gives a crap) about these articles is tenuous, at best. I think Laporte at least has a claim, but this seems largely handwaving.

Quebec, with 8.2 million people, goes 365 days on hydro all the time.

Considering they doxed ISIS fighters, does anyone find it surprising they're returning the favour?

Lazy morons don't try to support their BS points.

> If carbon is as real a problem as claimed, this in the long run will not be enough.

It most certainly will. Do your math.

200? Try 60:

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

~4000 dead.

> Fail. Completely. Yet again.

Yes, you did.

> There simply isn't enough wind in many areas to even consider it.

There is 10 times as much wind power in the US as needed to power everything in it.
http://www.windenergyfoundation.org/interesting-wind-energy-facts

> We don't have enough sunshine in may parts of the country either

There is 100 times as much sunshine in the US as needed to power everything in it.
http://ecowatch.com/2014/11/20/solar-energy-power-u-s/

And before you start typing your ill-informed response, it doesn't make a difference what you think, because solar and wind are outpacing all other forms of power generation both in the US and the world. So you're wrong. Period.

>Nice if you've got a bit of land and don't give a flying fuck about poor people's electricity bills.

As opposed to "nice if you're BP and don't mind spilling oil while hovering up government money".

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2012/feb/27/wind-power-subsidy-fossil-fuels

Oil and gas received 3.6 billion in 2010, renewables got 1.4, wind got half of that.

> wind should be less efficient than energy from solar due to thermodynamics

Whoa... wind is the result of heating taking place over the entire planet. Or more accurately, millions of square meters.

> Why then is solar more expensive

Because a solar panel only collects what falls on 1.6 square meters, not millions.

> On the wind side there are substantial additional costs over dispatchable sources

No, there are not. I posted the numbers. Integrating wind is cheap, and the numbers keep going down because the equipment is getting better. The vast majority of "the equipment" is a PC running software you can buy from IBM.

When they invented coal fired power in the 1880s do you know what the interconnect cost was? Infinity. That's because they didn't have a grid, and the plants went up and down all the time. In spite of this, they built it out successfully anyway. They figured out how to interconnect two generators that would otherwise be running out of phase, how to keep voltages under control, how to handle generators going offline out of the blue.

Now after over 100 years, do you think we know more or less about how to hook up generation to the grid? More? Well if infinity was small enough to handle 100+ years ago, how can you possibly believe it's a) more difficult, or b) more expensive?

This isn't theoretical. We're actually adding this capacity as I type this. The grid is not failing. The companies are not going out of business. Everything is working just fine.

> will add almost 4.5 times as many MWs of utility-scale capacity as solar in 2015

But utility-scale is on;y about 1/3rd of the PV installed. So in terms of *totals* it should be closer to 1:1.

This is unlike wind, or practically any other source, where something like 99% of the installs are utility-scale.

Just click on the link I posted earlier, they have all the numbers there.